5 


TIIV  Political  Discussions  included  in  this  volume  are  taken  from 
a  large  number  of  the  same  general  character,  extending  through 
many  years.  The  principle  of  selection  for  publication  has  been  to 
present  those  that  relate  to  political  events  of  lasting  importance ; 
or  those  that  touch  upon  practical  questions  still  engaging  in  various 
degrees  the  attention  of  the  American  people. 

The  Diplomatic  Correspondence  refers  only  to  those  questions  still 
in  dispute, — questions  which  even  upon  a  larger  field  than  that  of 
our  own  political  contests  may  affect  the  future  interests  and  influ 
ence  of  the  United  States, 


CONTENTS. 


POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

PAGE 

NOMINATION  OF  FREMONT  FOR  PRESIDENT 1 

THE  NATIONAL  ISSUES  OF  1860 9 

CONFISCATION  OF  EEBEL  PROPERTY 18 

SPEECH    OF    MB.    ELAINE    ACCEPTING   HIS    FIRST   NOMINATION   TO 

CONGRESS 37 

CAN  THE  COUNTRY  SUSTAIN  THE  EXPENSE  OF  THE  WAR,  AND  PAY 

THE  DEBT  WHICH  IT  WILL  INVOLVE  ? 40 

PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF  1864. — LINCOLN  AGAINST  MCCLELLAN  .  48 
FUTILITY  OF  ATTEMPTING  TO  EQUALIZE  GOLD,  SILVER,  AND  PAPER 

MONEY  BY  LEGISLATION 55 

NEW  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION  IN  CONGRESS 58 

THE  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT  AS  A  BASIS  OF  RECONSTRUCTION      .  61 
SHALL  THE  LATE  REBELS  wriELD  THE  ENTIRE  CIVIL  POWER  OF  THE 

SOUTH? 72 

NATIONAL  HONOR  IN  THE  PAYMENT  OF  THE  NATIONAL  DEBT    .        .  77 

TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS 89 

GRANT  AND  SEYMOUR  COMPARED 95 

MR.  BURLING AME  AS  AN  ORATOR 104 

THE  NOMINATION  OF  HORACE  GREELEY  AS  A  PRESIDENTIAL  CAN 
DIDATE      109 

MR.  ELAINE'S  SEVENTH  AND  LAST  NOMINATION  AS  REPRESENTATIVE 

IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE  KENNEBEC  DISTRICT 119 

MUNICIPAL  DEBT  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 125 

THE  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY  AND  THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENTS    .  138 

SHALL  JEFFERSON  DAVIS  BE  RESTORED  TO  FULL  CITIZENSHIP?        .  150 

REMONETIZATION  OF  SILVER 163 

THE  HALIFAX  AWARD 176 

TRADE  WITH  SOUTH  AMERICA 186 

THE  PROGRESS  OF  THE  NORTH-WEST        .... 

SOUTHERN  ABUSE  OF  ELECTIVE  FRANCHISE 201 

SPEECH  OF  MR.   ELAINE  AT  THE  DINNER  OF  THE    NEW  ENGLAND 

SOCIETY  OF  NEW  YORK,  DEC.  23,  1878 210 


vi  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

CHINESE  IMMIGRATION  TO  THE  PACIFIC  SLOPE 216 

CHINESE  IMMIGRATION 232 

CHINESE  IMMIGRATION 236 

FALSE  ISSUE  RAISED  BY  THE  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY  ....  246 
NATIONAL  SOVEREIGNTY  AGAINST  STATE  SOVEREIGNTY.  —  POSITION 

OF  MR.  WEESTER 260 

EULOGY  OF  SENATOR  CHANDLER 272 

/  OUGHT  THE  NEGRO  TO  BE  DISFRANCHISED?  OUGHT  HE  TO  HAVE 

BEEN  ENFRANCHISED? 278 

ENCOURAGEMENT  TO  AMERICAN  SHIP-BUILDING  AND  THE  REVIVAL 

OF  AMERICAN  COMMERCE  ON  THE  OCEAN                                         ,  300 


DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

CLAYTON-BULWER  TREATY  AND  INTEROCEANIC  CANAL       .        .        .311 

ARBITRARY  ARRESTS  IN  IRELAND 336 

OPPRESSION  OF  THE  HEBREWS  IN  RUSSIA 340 

DISPATCHES  CONCERNING  THE   WAR  BETWEEN   PERU,    CHILI,    AND 

BOLIVIA 343 

SPECIAL  MISSION  TO  CHILI,  PERU,  AND  BOLIVIA 364 

OUR  FRIENDLY  RELATIONS  WITH  MEXICO 373 

THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  THE  HAWAIIAN  KINGDOM     ....  388 

ASSASSINATION  OF  ALEXANDER  III.,  EMPEROR  OF  RUSSIA  .        .        .  397 

BARON  STEUBEN'S  FAMILY  AT  YORKTOWN 399 

FRANCE  PROPOSES  JOINT  INTERVENTION  IN  SOUTH  AMERICA  IN  WAR  .  401 

PROPOSED  PEACE  CONGRESS  OF  AMERICAN  STATES                               .  403 


POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

WITHDRAWAL  OF  INVITATIONS  TO  A  PEACE  CONGRESS  .  .  .  407 
FOREIGN  POLICY  OF  THE  GARFIELD  ADMINISTRATION  .  .  .  .411 
MR.  ELAINE'S  LETTER  ACCEPTING  THE  REPUBLICAN  NOMINATION 

FOR  THE  PRESIDENCY  IN  1884 420 

SPEECHES  BEFORE  THE  PEOPLE  DURING  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  CANVASS 

OF  1884 435 

AFTER  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF  1884 466 

MEMORIAL  SERVICES  IN  HONOR  OF  GENERAL  GRANT  IN  AUGUSTA, 

MAINE,  AUG.  8,  1885 472 

THE  IRISH  QUESTION 477 

POLITICAL  ISSUES  IN  1886 486 

MEMORIAL  ADDRESS  ,  503 


POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


POLITICAL    DISCUSSIONS. 


NOMINATION    OF    FREMONT    FOR    PRESIDENT. 


[Speech  delivered  by  Mr.  Elaine  at  a  Republican  meeting  in  Litchfield, 
Maine,  June  28,  1856.] 

FELLOW-CITIZENS,  —  The  Republican  party  is  a  new  political 
organization.  It  is  not  yet  two  years  old.  Its  first  small  meet 
ings  were  held  late  in  the  summer  of  1854,  when  the  name  was 
adopted,  and  the  party  organized  on  the  one  great  principle  of 
resisting  the  spread  of  slavery  into  the  Territories  of  the  United 
States.  The  new  party  had  its  origin  in  the  deep  and  abiding 
conviction  on  the  part  of  the  opponents  of  slavery  that  the 
propagandists  of  the  South  cannot  be  trusted  upon  any  adjust 
ment  or  upon  any  agreement.  Pressed  hard  by  opposition,  to 
day,  they  will  agree  to  a  compromise ;  and,  to-morrow,  if  they 
see  opportunity  for  fresh  aggression,  they  will  disregard  it  and 
trample  upon  it.  The  two  great  compromises  on  the  subject 
of  slavery  were  that  which  established  the  geographical  line  of 
36°  30'  in  the  year  1820,  known  as  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
and  that  which  was  enacted  thirty  years  later  and  is  known 
as  the  Compromise  of  1850.  At  both  junctures,  the  potent 
agency  that  wrought  on  behalf  of  the  South  was  the  fear  that 
the  Union  might  be  dissolved.  That  was  the  threat  of  Southern 
leaders  ;  it  was  the  conclusive  argument  that  induced  Northern 
men  to  yield.  But  in  1854  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  re 
pealed,  and,  with  it,  the  Compromise  of  1850  was  put  under 
foot.  The  division  line  (by  which  it  was  agreed  that  freedom 
should  have  sway  north  of  it  and  slavery  should  permissively 
exist  south  of  it)  was  destroyed,  after  thirty-four  years  of  honor 
able  observance  on  both  sides. 

1 


2  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

The  destruction  of  the  Whig  party  was  one  of  the  immedi 
ate  results  of  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  because 
the  Northern  Whigs  were  largely  anti-slavery  in  feeling,  and 
could  not  be  held  in  co-operation  with  a  party  whose  Southern 
members  had  broken  faith  in  their  zeal  for  the  spread  of  slavery. 
A  large  number  of  Northern  Democrats  were  equally  resolved 
not  to  stand  by  their  old  party.  These  two  great  bodies,  join 
ing  with  the  old  Free-soil  and  Liberty  party,  are  the  elements 
that  have  coalesced  and  become  unified  within  the  ranks  of 
the  Republican  party.  I  think  it  is  not  boastful  to  say  that 
in  the  character  of  the  men  wrho  lead  this  party  and  of  the  vast 
number  who  compose  it,  that  in  its  growth,  in  its  zeal,  in  its 
unselfish  devotion  to  a  single  great  issue,  it  is  unprecedented,  if 
not  phenomenal.  It  has  grown  so  rapidly  that  it  is  in  the 
National  field  with  full  strength  and  with  organization  —  coura 
geous  enough  to  enter  the  fight,  with  the  conscience  and  the 
nerve  to  accept  defeat  and  prepare  for  another  battle.  Its 
members  are  not  to  be  put  down  by  the  cry  of  sectionalism,  or 
frightened  by  the  threat  of  disunion.  Certainly  no  member  of 
the  Republican  party  underrates  the  value  of  the  Union  of  the 
States,  or  would  hesitate  at  any  sacrifice  to  preserve  it,  except 
the  sacrifice  of  honor,  or  the  sacrifice  of  that  freedom  which 
the  Union  was  established  to  preserve.  But  we  do  not  con 
template  the  dissolution  of  the  Union  as  a  possibility ;  and 
certainly  no  sane  man  believes  that  a  great  body  of  States, 
bound  together  in  mutual  interest  and  cemented  by  a  thousand 
ties,  can  be  torn  asunder  so  readily  and  so  easily  as  the  flippant 
threats  of  the  Southern  extremists  would  imply. 

The  Republican  party,  therefore,  will  march  forward  in  the 
line  of  duty,  and  will  try  to  engraft  its  principles  upon  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  country.  They  have  no  purpose  to  interfere 
with  slavery  in  the  States ;  they  have  no  purpose  to  inter 
fere  with  slavery  anywhere,  except  to  the  extent  that  Thomas 
Jefferson  and  the  Fathers  of  the  Republic  interfered  with  it 
when  they  excluded  it  from  free  territory.  If,  indirectly,  that 
policy  interferes  with  slavery  in  the  States,  we  are  not  respon 
sible.  Certainly  the  great  evil  of  slavery,  wherever  it  exists,  is 
not  to  be  countenanced  and  upheld  by  subjecting  other  com 
munities  and  other  territory  to  a  like  curse.  I  have  no  doubt 


NATIONAL  REPUBLICAN  CONVENTION  OF  1856.  3 

that  the  great  majority  of  the  Republican  party  would  interfere 
with  slavery  in  the  States,  if  they  considered  that  they  had  the 
Constitutional  right  to  do  so  ;  but  they  will  not  violate  their 
oaths  to  observe  the  Constitution,  and  they  will  not  strain  their 
consciences  to  make  that  seem  right  which  the  plain  letter  of 
the  law  forbids.  But  they  believe  that  their  right  to  exclude 
slavery  from  the  free  Territories  is  just  as  clear  as  their  inability 
to  interfere  with  it  in  the  States ;  and  on  that  single  point,  great 
and  far-reaching  in  its  effects,  we  challenge  the  Democratic 
party  of  the  South  and  of  the  North  to  a  contest  for  the  govern 
ment  of  the  country. 

The  first  National  Convention  of  the  Republican  party  has 
lately  been  held  in  Philadelphia,  and  this  Congressional  Dis 
trict  did  me  the  honor  to  send  me  as  one  of  its  delegates  to 
that  remarkable  assemblage.  I  am  sure  that  I  shall  be  ex 
pected  by  you,  as  my  constituents,  to  make  some  report  of  what 
was  said  and  done  there,  and  especially  what  was  done  by 
the  Maine  delegation.  The  daily  journals  have  given  you  the 
details  of  the  proceedings,  and  I  content  myself  with  some 
general  observations  on  the  character  of  the  Convention  —  its 
personal  character,  if  I  may  use  the  phrase.  In  the  various 
delegations  that  composed  the  Convention,  in  the  sacred  cause 
which  it  assembled  to  uphold,  and  in  the  work  which  it  accom 
plished,  it  will  fairly  rank  as  one  of  the  most  significant  and 
important  political  conventions  ever  held  in  the  United  States. 
A  marked  feature  was  the  large  proportion  of  young  men 
among  its  members,  and  in  the  general  tendency  to  select  that 
class  I  can  find  the  only  cause  for  conferring  upon  me  the 
distinction  of  membership  in  such  a  body. 

It  was  scarcely  to  be  expected  that  such  an  assemblage  of 
men,  many  of  them  marked  by  individuality,  and  all  of  them 
possessing  independence  of  thought  and  action,  should,  without 
some  difference  of  view,  reach  a  general  unanimity  of  con 
clusion.  The  drift  of  events  for  some  months  before  the  Con 
vention  met  was  towards  the  nomination  of  Colonel  Fremont 
for  the  Presidency,  and  I  believe  he  received  a  unanimous 
vote  of  the  delegates  from  every  State  in  New  England,  ex 
cept  Maine.  Among  our  delegates  there  was  a  friendly  and 
sincere  difference  of  view,  which  separated  us  into  nearly  equal 


4  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

parts, — thirteen  preferring  Colonel  Fremont,  and  eleven  giving 
their  votes  on  the  first  or  informal  ballot  for  Judge  McLean  of 
Ohio.  I  was  one  of  the  eleven.  I  did  not  act  from  any  spirit 
of  opposition  to  Colonel  Fremont.  My  preference  for  Judge 
McLean  was  in  large  degree  based  upon  admiration  of  his  high 
character,  but  partly  upon  an  inherited  friendship  for  him, 
partly  from  a  kinship  of  feeling  with  his  conservatism,  and 
partly,  I  suppose,  because  the  Whig  instincts  which  I  share 
with  the  great  majority  of  this  district  turned  me  towards 
one  who  had  so  long  been  among  the  trusted  statesmen  and 
soundest  advisers  of  that  party.  But  it  would  be  unfair  to  say 
that  Whig  or  anti-Whig  traditions  had  much  to  do  with  the 
division,  for  the  two  most  eminent  members  of  our  delegation, 
Ex-Governor  Edward  Kent  and  Ex-Governor  Anson  P.  Morrill, 
the  one  formerly  an  earnest  Whig  and  the  other  a  radical 
Democrat,  united  in  favor  of  nominating  Judge  McLean. 

The  sense  of  the  Convention  was,  however,  strongly  in  favor 
of  taking  Colonel  Fremont,  the  first  ballot  showing  359  votes 
in  his  favor,  to  196  votes  for  Judge  McLean.  The  nomination 
was  immediately  declared  to  be  unanimous,  and  was  cheered  as 
heartily  by  those  who  had  supported  Judge  McLean  as  by  those 
who  had  been  the  original  advocates  of  Colonel  Fremont's  nomi 
nation.  The  Presidential  candidate  being  thus  selected  from  the 
Pacific  coast,  it  was  at  once  regarded  as  probable  that  the  second 
place  on  the  ticket  would  be  given  to  an  Atlantic  State,  though 
the  Mississippi  Valley  contended  for  it.  A  concentration  was 
rapidly  formed  upon  Mr.  Dayton,  long  eminent  as  a  Senator 
from  New  Jersey,  though  on  the  first  ballot,  as  you  alread}^ 
know,  he  did  not  receive  a  majority, — a  considerable  number 
of  votes  being  given  to  different  candidates.  The  leading  com 
petitor,  who  received  a  hundred  and  ten  votes,  was  Abraham 
Lincoln  of  Illinois,  who,  ten  years  ago,  served  a  single  term  in 
Congress,  and  who  has  lately  gained  reputation  beyond  the 
lines  of  his  own  State  by  the  ability  with  which  he  has  re 
viewed  Senator  Douglas  for  his  course  in  securing  the  repeal 
of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  Some  of  the  Illinois  delegates 
gave  pledges,  privately,  that  if  Lincoln  were  nominated  for 
Vice-President  the  ticket  would  receive  the  electoral  vote  of 
Illinois, — thus  defeating  Douglas  in  his  own  State.  But  the 


THREE  POLITICAL  PARTIES.  5 

tendency  towards  an  Eastern  candidate  was  too  strong  to  be 
arrested. 

The  three  parties  are  now  before  the  country  with  their 
candidates,  and  there  is  something  remarkable  in  the  political 
antecedents  of  the  gentlemen  on  each  ticket.  Colonel  Fre'mont, 
who  is  now  adopted  by  the  Republican  party,  which  includes 
the  old  Abolitionists,  the  anti-slavery  Democrats  and  the  great 
majority  of  the  Whigs  of  the  North,  is  a  native  of  South 
Carolina,  reared  in  the  doctrines  of  Calhoun,  called  to  the 
civil  service  under  President  Jackson,  appointed  to  the  army 
by  President  Van  Buren,  and  married  to  a  daughter  of  Colonel 
Benton.  With  Southern  birth  and  all  these  Democratic  tradi 
tions  and  connections,  it  is  one  of  those  singular  revolutions, 
not  altogether  infrequent  in  American  political  life,  that  makes 
him  the  candidate  of  the  anti-slavery  party  of  the  North. 

Mr.  Buchanan,  who  is  the  Democratic  candidate,  was  one  of 
the  most  pronounced  of  the  old  Federalists,  and  has  hitherto 
found  his  earlier  record  a  stumbling-block  to  his  political 
advancement.  Since  he  joined  the  Democratic  party  he  has 
continually  striven  to  efface  his  record  as  a  Federalist  and  espe 
cially  the  memory  of  his  hostility  to  the  Administration  of  Mr. 
Madison.  He  has  offered  among  other  disproofs,  the  fact  that 
in  the  war  of  1812  he  joined  a  military  company  and  marched 
to  the  relief  of  Baltimore  when  menaced  by  British  invaders. 
The  hostile  force  had  left  before  he  arrived.  This  attempt  at 
establishing  a  military  record  was  much  impaired  by  a  humor 
ous  interruption  by  Mr.  Clay  upon  a  certain  occasion  in  the 
Senate,  when  he  asked  Mr.  Buchanan  whether  in  the  war  of 
1812  the  British  had  retired  from  Baltimore  because  he  was 
advancing  upon  it,  or  whether  he  had  advanced  upon  Baltimore 
because  he  knew  the  British  had  retired  ?  —  Mr.  Breckinridge, 
his  associate,  comes  from  an  old  Whig  family  long  resident  in 
Kentucky,  his  father  and  grandfather  both  being  supporters  of 
Mr.  Clay.  So  that  the  Democratic  ticket  really  contains  no 
candidate  that  was  originally  Democratic. 

The  American  party,  as  the  Know-Nothings  now  style  them 
selves,  have  selected  Mr.  Fillmore,  placed  him  upon  a  pro-slaver}^ 
platform,  and  associated  with  him  on  the  ticket  A.  J.  Donelson 
of  Tennessee,  the  adopted  nephew  of  General  Jackson  and  the 


6  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

inheritor  of  his  principles.  Mr.  Fillmore  was  originally  an 
anti-slavery  Whig,  a  member  of  the  anti-masonic  party,  and 
entered  Congress  midway  in  General  Jackson's  administration, 
towards  which  he  always  held  the  position  of  an  implacable 
opponent.  Throughout  his  Congressional  career  he  was  dis 
tinguished  by  his  continual  resistance  to  the  advances  of  the 
slave-power,  being  through  all  these  years  fully  abreast  with 
Mr.  Seward,  who  at  that  time  represented  the  party  at  home. 
When  he  succeeded  to  the  Presidency,  after  General  Taylor's 
death,  six  years  ago,  Mr.  Fillmore  went  over  to  the  South, 
favored  the  Compromise  bills  and  approved  the  Fugitive-slave 
Law,  the  most  cruel  enactment  that  ever  was  placed  upon  the 
statute-book  of  the  United  States.  It  is  this  which  has  asso 
ciated  him  with  an  old  Southern  Democrat  closely  identified 
with  General  Jackson,  and  has  made  him  the  candidate  of  the 
Southern  men  who  cannot  support  Mr.  Buchanan. 

It  is  a  singular  combination  that  gives  to  each  party  in  the 
contest  a  candidate  whose  early  associations  and  whose  early 
political  views  were  in  absolute  conflict  with  the  early  views 
and  associations  of  the  men  who  are  now  supporting  him.  But 
the  advantage  which  the  Republican  party  has  in  this  regard  is 
that  Colonel  Fre'mont,  in  his  early  life,  had  no  political  record 
of  any  kind,  but  was  engaged  as  an  engineer,  a  soldier,  a  pioneer 
and  an  explorer  until  the  opening  of  the  great  era  which  led  to 
our  acquisitions  of  territory  from  Mexico.  He  came  from  Cal 
ifornia  as  a  senator  six  years  ago,  associated  with  one  of  the 
extremest  Southern  Democrats, — William  M.  Gwin,  —  but  lie 
came  as  the  representative  of  a  free  State  not  yet  infected  by 
the  presence  of  a  slave,  —  a  free  State  that  broke  the  equality 
of  representation  in  the  Senate  between  North  and  South  which 
the  Southern  Democrats,  under  Mr.  Calhoun's  lead,  had 
demanded  as  the  protection  of  the  institution  of  Slavery.  As 
long  as  the  South  could  hold  half  of  the  Senate,  no  anti-slavery 
measure  could  be  enacted.  That  spell  was  broken  by  the 
admission  of  California ;  and  but  for  Fremont's  relationship  to 
Benton  and  the  interest  which  the  distinguished  Missouri  sena 
tor  was  thereby  induced  to  take  in  the  fate  of  California,  the 
Golden  State  might  not  have  been  able  to  come  in,  without  ruin 
ous  exactions  and  conditions  imposed  by  the  South.  But  for 


A  SINGLE  ISSUE  PRESENTED.  7 

the  action  of  Colonel  Benton  the  Democratic  party  would  have 
been  practically  consolidated  against  the  admission  of  California 
to  the  Union  until  a  slave  State  could  be  organized  to  offset 
her  influence  on  all  questions  affecting  the  interests  of  the 
South.  His  course  will  be  adjudged  as  eminently  wise  and 
patriotic  whatever  motive  may  have  originally  inspired  it.  But 
it  cost  him  his  standing  and  influence  in  the  Democratic  party 
and  ended  his  senatorial  life.  He  served  in  the  last  •Con gress 
as  representative  from  the  St.  Louis  district,  and  soon  found 
himself  again  in  rank  antagonism  with  his  old  party  in  its  lead 
ing  measure,  —  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise. 

Fremont  was  the  herald,  therefore,  of  a  new  political  era  in 
the  nation  ;  and  without  realizing  it  himself  he  became  the 
embodiment  of  the  Republican  policy  which  declared  that  the 
National  Territories  shall  be  kept  free  from  the  curse  of  slavery. 
The  battle  between  free  institutions  and  slave  institutions  is 
now  in  actual  progress  in  the  Territory  of  Kansas,  and  will  be- 
fought  there  to  the  bitter  end.  Mr.  Buchanan  represents  the 
pro-slavery  side  of  that  contest,  Colonel  Fremont  represents, 
the  anti-slavery  side,  while  Mr.  Fillmore,  evading  a  declaration 
on  the  question,  is,  so  far  as  he  has  political  strength,  decisively 
ancl  most  effectively  on  the  side  of  the  South. 

This  is  not  the  fight  of  the  old  Abolitionists,  though  being 
practical  and  sensible  men  those  radical  disciples  of  Freedom 
are  joining  heart  and  hand  with  the  supporters  of  Fremont. 
As  I  have  already  intimated  the  Republican  party  is  not  pledged 
to  the  removal  of  slavery  from  the  District  of  Columbia,  nor  to 
the  destruction  of  the  interstate  slave-trade,  nor  even  to  the 
repeal  of  that  most  infamous  statute,  the  Fugitive-slave  Law. 
The  party  is  pledged  simply  and  only  to  the  policy  of  prohibit 
ing  the  existence  of  slavery  in  all  the  Territories  of  the  United 
States.  In  fact,  the  platform  adopted  by  the  Philadelphia  Con 
vention  is  confined  to  the  one  issue  of  freedom  for  the  Terri 
tories,  with  a  resolution  added  favoring  the  construction  of  the 
Pacific  Railroad  and  another  favoring  liberal  appropriations  for 
the  improvement  of  rivers  and  harbors.  The  issue,  therefore, 
could  not  be  more  direct  or  more  specific.  Rarely,  indeed,  has 
it  happened,  in  the  complicated  character  of  political  questions, 
that  any  party  was  ever  able  to  enter  upon  a  popular  canvass 


8  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

with  an  issue  so  plain,  so  well  defined,  so  difficult  to  evade  and 
so  certain  to  enlist  intelligent  popular  interest. 

The  Republicans  of  Maine  are  resolved  to  join  their  brethren 
of  other  States  in  presenting  the  one  great  issue,  separated  from 
and  unembarrassed  by  all  other  personal,  political  or  moral  con 
siderations.  The  Democrats,  who  now  hold  the  political  power 
of  the  State  for  the  first  year  since  1851-52,  have  repealed  the 
Prohibitory  Law  and  substituted  a  License  Law.  They  have 
expected  that  such  an  issue  thrown  in  the  face  of  the  Republi 
cans,  three-fourths  of  whom  are  Prohibitionists,  might  create 
division  and  confusion  in  their  ranks  at  this  time.  The  leading 
Prohibitionists,  with  Anson  P.  Morrill  and  Neal  Dow  at  their 
head,  are  willing  and  in  fact  desirous  of  postponing  the  issue,  so 
that  we  can  have  a  clearly  defined  fight  on  National  questions 
this  year  and  a  clean  fight  on  Prohibition  next  year.  The 
Democratic  policy,  therefore,  though  designed  for  distraction, 
will  fail  to  discourage  the  Republican  host,  but  will,  rather, 
nerve  it  to  the  outlay  of  its  full  and  combined  strength. 

The  Republican  State  Convention,  which  meets  in  a  few 
days,  will  settle  all  these  issues,  and  then  we  shall  march  for 
ward  in  solid  column  to  the  conquest  of  the  State.  The  unan 
imous  desire  of  the  party  is  that  Hannibal  Hamlin  shall  be 
selected  as  our  standard-bearer;  and  though  Mr.  Hamlin  is 
reluctant  to  leave  the  Senate  to  become  Governor,  he  must 
remember  that  the  same  power  which  can  make  him  Governor 
can  send  him  back  to  the  Senate.  Let  us  make  the  demand 
upon  him  unanimous  and  so  imposing  that  he  cannot  decline 
our  request.  To  that  end  let  me  urge  that  all  the  towns  in 
Kennebec  be  represented  at  Portland  with  full  delegations,  on 
the  8th  of  next  month.  There  is  work  to  be  done  this  year, 
and  the  old  Whig  county  of  Kennebec  must  do  her  full  share. 
Maine  will  not  lag  behind  in  this  contest  for  free  territory, 
and  the  first  duty  in  hand  is  to  destroy  the  present  Democratic 
supremacy  in  the  State. 


ADVENT  OF  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN". 


THE    NATIONAL    ISSUES    OF    1860. 


[Extract  from  a  speech  delivered  by  Mr.  Blaine  before  a  Republican  mass 
meeting  at  Farmington,  Maine,  July  4,  1860,  at  which  Honorable  Israel  Wash- 
burn,  Republican  candidate  for  Governor,  formally  opened  the  campaign.] 

I  SINCERELY  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman  and  Republicans  of 
Franklin  County,  for  the  honor  you  have  conferred  upon  me  by 
your  invitation  to  join  our  distinguished  candidate  for  Governor 
in  formally  opening  the  State  and  Presidential  campaigns  in 
Maine.  We  have  had  the  great  pleasure  of  hearing  Mr.  Wash- 
burn,  and  I  am  sure  we  all  feel  that  in  his  eloquent  and  ex 
haustive  speech  on  the  leading  National  issue  he  has  left  little 
for  other  speakers  to  say.  If  his  speech  made  one  impression 
upon  my  mind  stronger  than  any  other,  it  was  that  we  do  a 
wrong  to  our  State  and  to  the  Nation  to  withdraw  him  from 
Congress  to  make  him  Governor  of  the  State,  when  his  services 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  had  so  fully  ripened  him  for 
the  closing  battles  of  that  conflict  for  free  territory,  in  which, 
for  the  past  ten  years,  he  has  borne  so  conspicuous  and  so  hon 
orable  a  part.  But  it  is  now  too  late  to  change,  and  we  must 
content  ourselves  with  the  belief  that  if  we  lose  a  brilliant 
Representative  in  Congress  we  shall  secure  an  equally  brilliant 
Governor,  and  that  Mr.  Rice,  who  is  nominated  as  his  successor 
in  the  National  field,  will  faithfully  uphold  the  principles  which 
Mr.  Washburn's  long  career  has  so  fitly  illustrated. 

It  is  interesting  and  important  for  us,  at  the  initial  point  of 
the  National  campaign,  to  see  how  the  events  of  four  years 
have  deepened  and  broadened  the  issue  upon  which  the  Republi 
can  party  was  organized,  and  how  that  party,  growing  and 
strengthening  in  all  the  States  of  the  North,  has  enlarged  the 
creed  of  principles  which  first  constituted  its  political  faith. 
The  vote  for  Fremont,  in  1856,  though  the  party  had  been  hastily 


10  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

summoned  and  was  imperfectly  organized,  was  yet  so  large  as 
to  give  a  wholesome  fright  to  the  pro-slavery  leaders  of  the 
South.  Mr.  Buchanan  carried  his  own  State  by  only  two  thou 
sand  votes  in  the  October  election,  and  if  the  majority  had  been 
two  thousand  the  other  way  the  coalition  ticket  of  Fremont 
and  Fillmore  electors  would  probably  have  been  chosen.  In 
that  event  the  election  would  have  been  thrown  into  the  House 
of  Representatives,  and  either  Mr.  Buchanan  or  Mr.  Fillmore 
would  have  been  chosen  President  through  the  same  process 
that  gave  John  Quincy  Adams  the  Executive  Chair  in  1825. 
Though  it  might  not  have  deprived  the  Democracy  of  the  Chief 
Magistracy,  it  would  have  been  more  than  equivalent  to  an  ordi 
nary  defeat  between  parties.  Even  as  it  resulted,  the  gathered 
hosts  of  the  free  North  so  alarmed  the  leaders  of  Southern 
opinion  that  something  was  imperatively  demanded  to  strength 
en  their  position. 

The  Nation  did  not  wait  long  to  learn  the  policy  and  purpose 
of  the  pro-slavery  leaders.  The  Republicans  had  already  once 
gained  control  of  the  popular  branch  of  Congress,  and  the 
Democracy  were  afraid  that  the  same  result  might  be  repeated. 
That  implied  the  possibility  of  defeat  at  the  polls  in  a  Presi 
dential  election  ;  and  with  the  Executive  and  Legislative  de 
partments  of  the  Government  against  them,  they  feared  for  the 
fate  of  slavery.  In  this  dilemma  they  had  recourse  to  the 
National  Judiciary  to  strengthen  them  in  their  position.  So 
assured  were  they  that  a  decision  of  great  value  to  the  pro-slavery 
interest  was  impending,  that  Mr.  Buchanan  ventured  to  refer 
to  it  in  his  Inaugural  Address  as  "soon  to  be  announced." 
People  did  not  realize  at  the  time  the  gross  impropriety  of  this 
reference,  but  its  full  measure  was  seen  when,  not  long  after, 
the  Dred  Scott  decision  was  pronounced  by  the  Supreme  Court. 
This  decision,  which  primarily  related  to  the  freedom  of  a  sin 
gle  man  (whose  name  the  case  bears),  was  so  broadened  by  the 
Court,  in  its  obiter  dicta,  as  to  take  in  all  existing  political  dis 
putes  on  the  slavery  question.  The  Missouri  Compromise  of 
1820  was  declared  to  have  been  unconstitutional,  and  its  flagi 
tious  repeal  in  1854  was  thus  upheld  as  a  patriotic  duty  on  the 
part  of  Congress.  As  far  as  a  judicial  edict  could  do  it,  slavery 
was  strengthened  everywhere  by  that  decision,  the  whole 


THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION.  11 

National  domain  was  opened  to  its  ingress,  and  no  power  was 
left,  either  among  the  settlers  in  the  Territories  or  in  the  Con 
gress  of  the  United  States,  to  exclude  it.  The  belief  with 
many  who  are  entitled  to  know,  is  that  the  "opinions"  of  the 
Court  which  take  in  matter  beyond  the  record  of  the  case, 
would  never  have  been  delivered  had  not  the  supposed  polit 
ical  necessities  of  the  South  demanded  this  judicial  declaration 
of  the  extreme  doctrine  of  Mr.  Calhoun. 

The  Southern  men  have  found,  however,  that  they  reckoned 
without  their  host  when  they  supposed  that  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  on  political  questions  of  this  character,  would  give 
up  a  contest  that  involves  freedom  for  a  continent,  on  the  mere 
sideivay  opinions  of  five  pro-slavery  judges.  The  contest  goes 
on ;  and  it  has  been  deepened  by  the  atrocious  efforts  to  compel 
Kansas  to  enter  the  Union  under  the  fraudulent  constitution 
made  at  Lecompton,  against  the  will  and  the  wish  of  her  people. 
Neither  the  abuse  of  power  by  the  President  nor  the  perversion 
of  justice  by  the  Supreme  Court  can  call  a  halt  in  this  battle 
for  free  territory.  It  is  destined  to  go  forward ;  and  the  ele 
ments  which  the  pro-slavery  leaders  have  relied  upon  as  settling 
it  are  but  acting  as  incentives  to  greater  energy  and  more  deter 
mined  purpose  on  the  part  of  the  freemen  of  the  Northern 
States.  The  cry  of  "  sectionalism,"  which  is  part  of  the  cam 
paign  thunder  of  the  Democratic  party,  has  lost  its  force  ;  for 
the  people  measure  its  meaning  and  are  ready,  in  their  own 
phrase,  to  unite  in  defense  of  freedom  when  Southern  men 
combine  in  defense  of  slavery. 

In  the  election  of  1856  the  opponents  of  the  Democratic 
party  were  divided.  I  do  not  say  that,  even  had  they  been 
united,  they  could  have  triumphed  at  that  time.  But  this  year, 
in  the  good  Providence  of  God,  the  division  comes  in  the 
Democratic  party  itself;  and  we  can  felicitate  ourselves  that 
the  strife  between  Mr.  Douglas  and  Mr.  Breckinridge  will  in  all 
probability  give  the  election  to  the  Republicans  of  the  United 
States,  and  that  Abraham  Lincoln,  if  he  lives,  will  be  the  next 
President.  I  do  not  in  this  contest  reckon  Mr.  Bell  of  Ten 
nessee  (who,  with  Mr.  Edward  Everett  for  Vice-President,  is 
running  as  the  representative  of  the  old  Whig  remnant)  as  of 
any  special  force.  We  have  no  occasion  to  discuss  him  or  his 


12  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

platform,  and  we  can  safely  endure  the  little  diversion  which, 
through  old  Whig  influences,  he  may  make  from  the  Republican 
standard  in  the  North,  in  consideration  of  the  additional  con 
fusion  he  will  bring  to  the  Democratic  party  in  the  South.  It 
is  in  fact  probable  that  upon  the  whole  the  Republicans  will 
gain  by  the  candidacy  of  Bell  and  Everett,  because  the  majority 
of  their  Northern  supporters,  if  the  ticket  were  withdrawn, 
would  cast  their  votes  directly  for  Mr.  Douglas. 

Nor  should  we  listen  for  a  single  moment  to  those  Demo 
crats  who  for  the  first  time  in  their  lives  find  themselves  in  a 
quarrel  with  the  pro-slavery  chieftains,  and  are  asking  popular 
support  for  Douglas  as  the  leader  of  the  real  revolt  against  the 
dangerous  element  of  the  South.  If  there  were  no  other  argu 
ment  against  that  course,  its  utter  impracticability  would  be 
conclusive.  If  the  Douglas  men  are  in  earnest  and  wish  to 
smite  the  dangerous  and  aggressive  element  which  is  massing 
itself  under  the  lead  of  Breckinridge  for  pro-slavery  victory,  or 
for  disunion  in  the  event  of  failure,  they  should  unite  in  sup 
port  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  Either  Mr.  Lincoln  will  be  chosen,  or  the 
election  will  be  thrown  into  the  House  of  Representatives ;  and 
no  man  who  measures  the  working  of  political  forces  to-day  can 
view  that  result  with  any  feeling  other  than  one  of  dread. 
Certainly  no  Northern  man  ought  to  cast  his  vote  in  a  way  that 
admits  of  the  possibility  of  such  a  raffle  for  the  Presidency  as 
would  sacrifice  all  principle  and  involve  the  danger  that  may 
be  connected  with  a  contest  of  that  character. 

If  the  Republicans  of  Maine  need  any  further  stimulus  to 
rally  for  Lincoln  with  even  more  enthusiasm  than  they  rallied 
for  Fremont,  four  years  ago,  it  will  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
oar  own  distinguished  fellow-citizen,  Hannibal  Hamlin,  is  the 
candidate  for  Vice-President.  In  these  great  National  uprisings 
for  freedom,  it  seems  to  be  Mr.  Hamlin's  fortune  to  hold  promi 
nent  place  and  wield  prominent  influence.  It  was  his  great 
victory  as  candidate  for  Governor  four  years  ago,  that  gave 
impulse  to  the  popular  wave  for  Fre*mont,  and  it  is  his  presence 
and  his  influence  to-day  which,  with  that  of  our  distinguished 
candidate  for  Governor,  will  give  increased  volume  and  increased 
force  to  the  voice  of  Maine  in  September. 

There  is  another  great  step  forward  which  the  Republican 


FREE  TRADE  EXPERIMENT  OF   1846-1861.  13 

party  has  taken  in  its  National  platform  of  this  year,  —  re 
affirmed  with  special  emphasis  in  the  State  platform  of  Maine. 
In  1856  the  issue  was  entirely  confined  to  resistance  to  the 
aggressions  of  slavery,  but  since  that  date  the  financial  revul 
sions  which  have  led  to  such  distress  in  the  country  have  turned 
men's  minds  to  the  fallacy  and  the  failure  of  the  free-trade 
policy  which  for  the  last  fourteen  years  has  been  adopted  and 
enforced  by  the  Democratic  party.  The  prosperity  which  was 
said  to  have  been  caused  by  the  tariff  of  1846  has  received  a 
rude  shock,  and  three  years  ago  a  disastrous  panic  swept  over 
the  country  leaving  all  business  embarrassed,  if  not  prostrate. 
For  several  years  prior  to  that  date,  every  man  who  believed  in 
the  policy  of  protection  had  been  ridiculed  and  taunted  and 
pointed  to  the  indisputable  proof  of  the  advantage  of  free  trade 
to  be  found  in  the  generally  prosperous  condition  of  the  country. 
The  cry  in  favor  of  the  tariff  of  1846  was  so  boisterous  that  no 
opponent  of  it  could  even  have  a  hearing.  Those  who  still 
held  firmly  to  the  policy  of  protection  and  in  the  belief  that  the 
repeal  of  the  tariff  of  1842  was  a  great  National  blunder,  were 
silenced,  if  not  scorned,  in  the  arena  of  popular  discussion. 

It  was  in  vain  that  Proetctionists  attempted  to  prove  that  the 
period  of  prosperity  under  that  tariff  (from  1846  to  1856)  was 
due  to  a  series  of  what  might  be  termed  fortuitous  circum 
stances  —  all  involving  good  fortune  to  the  United  States  and 
ill  fortune  to  other  nations. 

—  First)  At  the  very  moment  of  the  enactment  of  the  tariff 
of  1846,  the  war  with  Mexico  broke  out.     The  result  was  that 
more  than  one  hundred  thousand  men  were  called  from  the 
pursuits  of  industry  and  enlisted  in  the  ranks  of  our  army, 
while  other  thousands,  leaving  their  usual  callings,  were  set  to 
work  on  the  production  of  war  material.     The  first  result  was  a 
deficiency  in  the  supply  of  laborers   and  a  large  advance  in 
wages.     In  the  course  of  two  years  the  Government  paid  out 
on  account  of  the  war,  nearly  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of 
dollars,  thus  stimulating  trade  in  almost  every  department. 

—  Second,  Midway  in  the  Mexican  war  (in  1847)  a  distressing 
famine  occurred  in  Ireland,  which,  with  short  crops  in  other 
parts  of  Europe,  created  an  unprecedented  demand  for  Ameri 
can  bread-stuffs.     This,  of  course,  raised  the  price  of  grain  to 


14  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

high  figures,  and  carried  large  profit  and  ready  money  to  the 
door  of  every  farmer  in  the  land. 

—  Third,  The  Mexican  war  had  scarcely  closed,  the  Irish  famine 
had  only  been  partially  relieved,  when  (in  1848-49)  tumults  and 
revolutions  occurred  in  nearly  every  European  kingdom.      The 
direct  result  was  the  disorganization  of  industry  and  the  depres 
sion  of  trade  all  over  the  continent.     Demand  for  our  bread- 
stuffs  continued,  and  competition  of  European  fabrics  was  so 
reduced  that  every  form  of  industry  in  the  United  States  was 
stimulated  to  fill  the  demands  of  the  home  market. 

—  Fourth,  The  convulsions   of   Europe  were  still  in  progress 
when  another  stimulus  was  added  to  our  prosperity.     Vast  de 
posits  of  gold  were  found  in  California,  and  from  1849  onward, 
for  several  years,  the  trade  of  the  country  in  all  departments 
was  quickened  to  a  degree  never  before  known.     The  demand 
for  shipping  to  carry  passengers  to  the  land  of  gold,  and  sup 
plies  to  sustain  them,  gave  new  life  to  our  navigation  interests 
and  filled  the  ocean  with  clipper  ships  that  had  no  rivals  for 
speed  or  beauty.     The  rapid  additions  to  our  gold   currency, 
immediately  followed  by  an  expansion  of  our  paper  currency, 
gave  such  an  abundance  of  money  as  had  never  before  been 
dreamed  of.     The  inevitable  result  was  a  rapid  rise  of  prices 
for  labor  and  for  all  commodities,  and  speculation  and  money- 
making  were  the  order  of  the  day.     Importations  from  Europe 
were  enormously  large,  and  in  settling  the  balances  we  followed 
the  theory  of  the  Free-trade  School,  in  regarding  our  gold  as 
simply  a  commodity,  to  be  shipped  out  of  the  country  as  freely 
as  iron  or  lead  or  wheat  or  corn. 

—  Fifth,  In  1854,  before  the  craze  of  speculation  had  time  to 
cool,  another  great  event  came  to  pass  which  still  further  iiv 
creased  our  prosperity.     It  really  seemed  as  if  the  whole  world 
had  conspired  to  have  every  accident  and  every  calamity  happen 
for  our  benefit.     When  our  prosperity  was  already  great  and 
growing,  the  three  leading  nations  of  Europe  —  as  nations  were 
then  ranked  —  Great  Britain,  Russia  arid  France  —  rushed  into 
a  tremendous  war  which  lasted  until  1856.     In  its  progress  the 
Crimean  struggle  absorbed  the  energies  of  the  nations  engaged, 
removed  to  a  large  extent  the  mercantile  marine  of  England 
and  France  from  peaceful  pursuits  and  gave  still  greater  expan- 


FREE  TRADE  EXPERIMENT  OF   1846-1861.  15 

sion  to  our  own  navigation,  stopped  the  flow  of  grain  from 
Russia,  and  gave  every  opportunity  for  trade  and  commerce  and 
great  profit  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

But  this  singular  combination  of  good  fortune  to  us  and  ill 
fortune  to  others  could  not  continue  indefinitely.  Prosperity 
built  upon  the  calamities  of  other  nations  has  a  most  insecure 
and  undesirable  foundation.  The  three  great  European  powers 
made  peace,  the  Baltic  and  the  Black  Sea  were  thrown  open 
for  the  exportation  of  Russian  bread-stuffs,  English  and  French 
ships  that  had  been  engaged  in  war  service  were  at  once  and 
everywhere  competing  at  low  prices  for  the  freight  of  the  world, 
shipments  of  gold  from  California  began  to  decrease.  The 
wheel  of  fortune  had  turned,  and  the  consequence  was  that  the 
portentous  superstructure  of  credit,  of  speculation,  which  had 
been  based  upon  what  the  gamblers  would  have  termed  our  ex 
traordinary  run  of  luck,  suddenly  came  to  an  end  when  the 
luck  ceased.  The  panic  of  1857  was  the  closing  chapter  in  that 
extraordinary  ten  years  in  which  the  political  economists  of  the 
Democratic  party  were  constantly  mistaking  effect  for  cause, 
were  constantly  blinded  to  the  actual  condition  of  trade  and 
to  the  real  sources  of  our  prosperity,  were  constantly  teaching  to 
the  people  of  the  United  States  spurious  theories,  were  con 
stantly  deceiving  themselves  by  fallacies,  and  were  constantly 
drawing  conclusions  from  false  premises. 

Notwithstanding  all  the  gold  received  from  California,  it  was 
found  that  we  had  not  enough  in  the  hour  of  panic  to  keep 
the  banks,  even  of  the  National  Metropolis,  from  immediate 
suspension.  Enterprises  all  over  the  country  were  checked; 
labor  was  thrown  into  confusion  and  distress,  and  for  the  last 
three  years  men  have  been  working  for  less  remuneration  than 
has  been  paid  to  honest  toil  at  any  period  within  the  preceding 
quarter  of  a  century.  The  policy  of  free  trade,  as  embodied 
in  the  tariff  of  1846,  had,  in  ten  years,  caused  such  a  large  im 
portation  of  foreign  goods  that,  besides  all  our  shipments  of 
produce  and  all  the  earnings  of  our  commercial  marine,  it 
drained  us  of  four  hundred  millions  of  gold  to  make  good  the 
balance  of  trade  against  us.  I  mean  four  hundred  millions  of 
gold,  net,  over  and  above  the  amount  which  in  the  currents  of 
trade  was  occasionally  shipped  to  us  from  Europe.  The  bank- 


16  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

ers  t)f  New  York,  the  great  majority  of  whom  had  sustained 
the  free-trade  policy,  were  among  the  first  to  ask  extension  on 
their  obligations.  They  could  pay  in  their  own  bills,  but  the 
specie  which  should  have  been  in  their  vaults  had  been  sold 
by  them  for  shipment  abroad,  to  make  good  the  balance  which 
their  favorite  tariff  of  1846  had  constantly  accumulated  against 
us  in  Europe. 

These  lessons,  fellow-citizens,  are  serious,  and  the  Republican 
National  Convention  has  appreciated  their  meaning.  That 
convention  recalls  us,  in  its  platform,  to  the  policy  of  adjusting 
our  revenues  so  as  to  protect  labor,  encourage  home  manufac 
tures,  create  a  balance  of  trade  in  our  favor,  and  keep  our  gold 
at  home.  While  fighting  against  the  admission  of  servile  toil 
of  the  black  man  in  the  new  Territories  of  the  continent,  Re 
publicans  will  fight  also  for  liberal  wages  to  the  toiling  white 
men  of  the  old  States  of  the  Union.  This  position  is  the  logical 
sequence,  the  logical  necessity  of  the  Republican  party.  An 
anti-slavery  party  is  by  the  irresistible  force  of  its  principles  a 
protection  party,  for  it  is  based  upon  the  rights  of  labor  for  the 
white  man  and  the  black  man  alike. 

I  do  not  doubt,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  dwell  on  this  new  plank 
in  our  Republican  platform  at  greater  length  and  with  keener 
personal  interest  than  would  any  of  the  gentlemen  Avho  are  to 
folloAV  me.  I  was  a  college-boy  in  my  native  State  when  the 
tariff  of  1846  was  enacted,  and  I  can  remember  how  profound 
and  how  angry  was  the  agitation  throughout  Pennsylvania  while 
the  bill  was  pending,  how  bitter  and  intense  was  the  popular 
indignation  when  it  was  finally  passed.  I  say  popular  indigna 
tion,  because  the  two  parties  were  not  divided  on  the  question 
of  Protection.  The  supporters  of  Mr.  Polk  in  that  State  in 
the  contest  of  1844  cried  as  loudly  for  the  tariff  of  '42  as 
did  the  supporters  of  Mr.  Clay. 

The  peculiar  bitterness  in  Pennsylvania,  the  acrimony,  the 
sense  of  betrayal  which  they  felt,  came  from  the  fact  that  the 
tariff  of  '46  was  passed  through  the  Senate  by  the  casting  vote 
of  the  Vice-President,  George  M.  Dallas,  a  distinguished  Penii- 
sylvanian,  who  had  been  associated  with  Mr.  Polk  on  the 
Democratic  ticket  for  the  purpose  of  rallying  the  State  against 
the  overwhelming  prestige  of  Mr.  Clay  as  a  Protectionist. 


FREE  TRADE  EXPERIMENT  OF   1846-18G1.  IT 

In  the  hour  of  trial  Mr.  Dallas  failed  his  friends.  *  Nor 
was  Mr.  Dallas  the  only  man  of  Pennsylvania  blood  and  birth 
who  disappointed  the  expectation  of  his  State.  Mr.  Buchanan 
was  Secretary  of  State  in  Mr.  Folk's  Cabinet  at  the  time,  and 
though  he  had  shown  his  belief  in  Protection  by  voting  for  the 
tariff  of  1842,  he  exerted  no  influence  from  his  high  place  to 
stay  its  repeal,  but  rather  co-operated  with  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  Robert  J.  Walker,  another  Pennsylvania!!  by  birth, 
in  his  zealous  work  for  the  tariff  of  1846.  Three  Pennsylvania 
Democrats,  therefore,  stand  in  different  degrees  responsible  for 
the  tariff  of  1846,  and  that  fact  will  prove  of  immense  value 
to  the  Republicans  in  their  pending  struggle  for  political  power 
in  that  State. 

When  Mr.  Buchanan  ran  for  President  four  years  ago,  the 
bubble  of  fancied  prosperity  from  Free  Trade  had  not  burst, 
and  he  was  enabled,  though,  as  I  have  already  said,  by  the 
closest  of  votes,  to  hold  his  State.  But  there  has  been  a  revul 
sion —  possibly  it  may  be  a  revolution  —  of  public  sentiment 
on  this  question  in  Pennsylvania.  A  distinguished  citizen  of 
that  State,  whom  I  met  at  the  Republican  National  Convention 
in  May,  told  me  that  a  very  large  proportion  —  I  think  he  said 
two-thirds  —  of  all  the  iron-establishments  had  gone  through 
some  form  of  insolvency  or  assignment  under  the  tariff  of  1846, 
especially  within  the  last  three  years,  when  the  Free-Traders 
went  one  step  farther  in  the  amendment  to  the  tariff  in  1857, 
just  preceding  the  panic. 

Let  us  then  do  our  full  duty  in  Maine  on  both  questions  that 
are  included  in  the  National  platform.  The  larger,  grander 
issue  of  freedom  for  the  Territories,  which  concerns  "  the  rights 
of  human  nature,"  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  industrial 
issue  upon  which  I  have  dwelt.  Both  can  stand  together,  and 
if  they  do  not,  both  will  fall  together. 

[The  remainder  and  larger  part  of  Mr.  Elaine's  speech  was  devoted  to  local  and 
State  issues,  and  especially  to  a  review  of  the  political  record  of  Hon.  Ephraiui  K. 
Smart,  Democratic  candidate  for  Governor  of  Maine.] 


18  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


CONFISCATION    OF    REBEL    PROPERTY. 


[The  subjoined  resolutions  were  passed  by  the  Senate  of  Maine,  February  7, 
1862,  — yeas  24,  nays  4.  In  the  House  of  Representatives,  on  the  6th  and  7th 
of  March,  they  were  vigorously  opposed  by  Honorable  A.  P.  Gould  of  Thomaston. 
At  the  conclusion  of  his  speech,  Mr.  Elaine,  who  was  Speaker  of  the  House, 
replied  to  Mr.  Gould  —  the  House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  Honorable 
William  P.  Frye  of  Lewiston  in  the  chair.  The  resolutions  were  passed  by  the 
house  —  yeas  104,  nays  26.  Mr.  Elaine's  speech  is  given  below.] 

STATE  OF  MAINE. 

RESOLVES  RELATING  TO  NATIONAL  AFFAIRS. 

Resolved,  That  we  cordially  endorse  the  administration  of  Abraham  Lincoln  in 
the  conduct  of  the  war  against  the  wicked  and  unnatural  enemies  of  the  republic, 
and  that  in  all  its  measures  calculated  to  crush  this  rebellion  speedily  and  finally, 
the  administration  is  entitled  to  and  will  receive  the  unwavering  support  of  the 
loyal  people  of  Maine. 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress,  by  such  means  as  will  not  jeopard 
the  rights  and  safety  of  the  loyal  people  of  the  South,  to  provide  for  the  confisca 
tion  of  estates  real  and  personal  of  rebels,  and  for  the  forfeiture  and  liberation  of 
every  slave  claimed  by  any  person  who  shall  continue  in  arms  against  the  author 
ity  of  the  United  States,  or  who  shall  in  any  manner  aid  and  abet  the  present 
wicked  and  unjustifiable  rebellion. 

Resolved,  That  m  this  perilous  crisis  of  the  country  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress, 
in  the  exercise  of  its  constitutional  power  to  "  raise  and  support  armies,"  to  pro 
vide  by  law  for  accepting  the  services  of  all  able-bodied  men  of  whatever  status, 
and  to  employ  these  men  in  such  manner  as  military  necessity  and  the  safety 
of  the  Republic  may  demand. 

Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  be  sent  to  the  Senate  T  and  Repre 
sentatives  in  Congress  from  this  State,  and  that  they  be  respectfully  requested  to 
use  all  honorable  means  to  secure  the  passage  of  acts  embodying  their  spirit  and 
substance. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN,  —  I  shall  best  make  myself  understood  and 
perhaps  most  intelligibly  respond  to  the  argument  of  the  gen 
tleman  from  Thomaston,  by  discussing  the  question  in  its  two 
phases :  first,  as  to  the  power  of  Congress  to  adopt  the  meas 
ures  proposed  in  the  pending  resolutions ;  second,  as  to  the 
expediency  of  adopting  them.  At  the  very  outset,  I  find  be- 


WAR    POWER    OF    CONGRESS.  19 

tween  the  gentleman  from  Thomaston  and  myself,  a  radical 
difference  as  to  the  "war  power"  of  the  Constitution,  —  its 
origin,  its  extent,  and  the  authority  which  shall  determine 
its  action,  direct  its  operation,  and  fix  its  limit.  He  contends 
that  the  war  power  of  this  Government  is  lodged  wholly  in 
the  Executive,  and  in  describing  his  almost  endless  authority 
he  piled  Ossa  on  Pelion  until  he  had  made  the  President,  under 
the  war  power  of  the  Constitution,  perfectly  despotic,  with  all 
prerogatives  and  privileges  concentrated  in  his  single  person. 
Then  with  uplifted  hands  he  reverently  thanked  God  that 
Abraham  Lincoln  was  not  an  ambitious  villain  to  use  this 
power,  trample  on  the  liberties  of  the  nation,  erect  a  throne  for 
himself,  and  thus  add  another  to  the  list  of  usurpers  that  have 
disfigured  the  world's  history.  That  was  precisely  the  line  of 
the  gentleman's  logic  — first  stripping  all  the  other  depart 
ments  of  their  proper  and  Constitutional  power,  heaping  it  all 
on  the  President,  and  then  thanking  God  that  the  President 
does  not  rule  as  the  caprices  of  tyranny  might  dictate  !  Could 
argumentative  nonsense  go  farther  ? 

I  dissent  from  these  conclusions  of  the  gentleman.  I  read 
the  Federal  Constitution  differently.  I  read  in  the  most  preg 
nant  and  suggestive  section  of  that  charter  of  free  government 
that  certain  "  powers  "  are  declared  to  belong  to  Congress.  I 
read  therein  that  "Congress  shall  have  power,"  among  other 
large  grants  of  authority,  "to  provide  for  the  common  defense;" 
that  it  shall  have  power  "to  declare  war,  grant  letters  of 
marque  and  reprisal,  and  make  rules  concerning  captures  on 
land  and  water ;  "  that  it  shall  have  power  "  to  raise  and  sup 
port  armies,"  to  "  provide  and  maintain  a  navy,"  and  to  "  make 
rules  for  the  government  of  the  land  and  naval  forces  ; "  and  as 
though  these  powers  were  not  sufficiently  broad  and  general 
the  section  concludes  in  its  eighteenth  subdivision,  by  declaring 
that  Congress  shall  have  power  "  to  make  all  laws  which  shall 
be  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into  execution  the  fore 
going  powers  and  all  other  powers  vested  by  this  Constitution 
in  the  Government  of  the  United  States  or  in  any  department 
or  officer  thereof."  Mark  that  —  "  in  any  department  or  officer 
thereof ! " 

Such  are  the  large  grants  of  war  power  made  specifically  to 


20  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

Congress  in  the  Federal  Constitution ;  and  to  show  that  these 
grants  were  understood  to  be  of  indefinite  extent,  bounded  and 
limited  only  by  the  law  of  necessity,  I  shall  quote  an  authority 
which  for  three-quarters  of  a  century  has  received  the  undi 
vided  respect  of  the  nation  —  an  authority  which  has  been 
respected  and  accepted  by  all  the  most  eminent  Constitutional 
lawyers  of  our  country,  from  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  the  great 
est  of  our  earlier  jurists,  to  Daniel  Webster,  the  greatest  of  all. 
I  refer  to  the  writings  of  Alexander  Hamilton  in  the  Feder 
alist.  In  the  twenty-third  number  of  that  valuable  series  of 
political  papers,  Mr.  Hamilton  discusses  the  very  question  at 
issue  here  to-day  in  reference  to  the  power  of  the  Government 
to  defend  and  preserve  "the  public  peace"  against  "internal 
convulsions  "  as  well  as  "  external  attacks."  Speaking  of  the 
power  to  provide  for  the  "  common  defense,"  specifically  de 
clared  in  the  Constitution  itself,  as  I  have  above  quoted,  to  be 
a  "  Congressional  power,"  Mr.  Hamilton  says,  — 

"  The  authorities  essential  to  the  care  of  the  common  defense  are  these : 
to  raise  armies  ;  to  build  and  equip  fleets  ;  to  prescribe  rules  for  the  govern 
ment  of  both ;  to  direct  their  operations ;  to  provide  for  their  support. 
These  powers  ought  to  exist  without  limitation;  because  it  is  impossible  to 
foresee  or  to  define  the  extent  and  variety  of  national  exigencies,  and  the  cor 
respondent  extent  and  variety  of  the  means  which  may  be  necessary  to  satisfy 
them.  The  circumstances  that  endanger  the  safety  of  nations  are  infinite  ; 
and  for  this  reason,  no  Constitutional  shackles  can  wisely  be  imposed  on  the 
power  to  which  the  care  of  it  is  committed.  This  power  ought  to  be  co-ex 
tensive  with  all  the  possible  combinations  of  such  circumstances,  and  ought 
to  be  under  the  direction  of  the  same  councils  which  are  appointed  to  pre 
side  over  the  common  defense. 

"  This  is  one  of  those  truths  which,  to  a  correct  and  unprejudiced  mind, 
carries  its  own  evidence  along  with  it,  and  may  be  obscured,  but  cannot  be 
made  plainer  by  argument  or  reasoning.  It  rests  upon  axioms  as  simple  as 
they  are  universal — the  means  ought  to  be  proportioned  to  the  end:  the 
persons  from  whose  agency  the  attainment  of  any  end  is  expected,  ought  to 
possess  the  means  by  which  it  is  to  be  attained. 

..."  And  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the  circumstances  which  may 
affect  the  public  safety  are  reducible  within  certain  determinate  limits ; 
unless  the  contrary  of  this  position  can  be  fairly  and  rationally  disputed,  it 
must  be  admitted  as  a  necessary  consequence  that  there  can  be  no  limitation 
of  that  authority,  which  is  to  provide  for  the  defense  and  protection  of  th& 
community,  in  any  matter  essential  to  its  efficacy." 

The  great  respect  due  to  the  quotation  I  have  just  made 
comes  in  the  first  place  from  the  eminent  character  of  its 
author.  It  derives  an  enhanced  force  from  the  fact  that  Mr. 
Hamilton  assisted  in  framing  the  Constitution,  whose  meaning 


WAR    POWER    OF    CONGRESS.  21 

he  was  so  clearly  expounding ;  and,  in  the  third  place,  it  is  of 
especial  value  from  the  circumstance  that  it  was  written  pending 
the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  and  as  an  inducement  to  the 
people  to  ratify  it.  It  is  to  be  noted,  moreover,  that  Mr.  Ham 
ilton  was  the  acknowledged  leader  of  the  Federal  party  of  that 
day  —  a  party  accused,  and  perhaps  justly,  of  wishing  to  vest 
all  the  power  possible  in  the  hands  of  the  President ;  and  yet 
this  Prince  of  Federalists  concedes,  or  rather  I  should  say  spe 
cifically  asserts,  that  the  principles  on  which  any  war  shall  be 
conducted,  whether  against  "  internal  convulsion  "  or  "  external 
attack,"  shall  be  determined  by  Congress.  I  beg  you  farther 
to  observe,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  at  the  very  time  Mr.  Ham 
ilton  was  penning  and  publishing  the  words  I  have  quoted, 
Patrick  Henry,  the  leading  spirit  of  the  Republicans,  who 
opposed  the  Federal  Constitution,  and  who  well-nigh  succeeded 
in  defeating  the  adoption  of  that  instrument  in  Virginia, 
grounded  his  opposition  chiefly  on  the  fact  that  this  large  grant 
of  power  was  made  to  Congress.  He  appealed  with  vehement 
warmth  to  the  slave-holding  interest,  then  as  now  so  sensitive 
as  to  its  presumed  rights  and  dangers,  warning  them  and 
bidding  them  remember  that  in  certain  contingencies  and  exi 
gencies  "  Congress  could  under  the  war  power  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  abolish  slavery  in  all  the  States."  We  thus  have,  Mr. 
Chairman,  as  contemporaneous  expositions  of  the  Constitution, 
the  expressed  opinions  of  the  leading  Federalist  and  a  leading 
Republican  of  that  era;  both  eminent,  both  honest,  the  one 
supporting,  the  other  opposing,  the  new  Constitution  for  pre 
cisely  the  same  reasons.  Assuredly  this  is  an  agreement  of 
testimony  as  remarkable  as  it  is  conclusive. 

At  the  origin  of  our  government,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  people 
were  jealous  of  their  liberties  ;  they  gave  power  guardedly  and 
grudgingly  to  their  rulers ;  they  were  hostile  above  all  things 
to  what  is  termed  the  one-man  power.  You  cannot  but  ob 
serve  with  what  peculiar  care  they  provided  against  the  abuse 
of  the  "  war  power ; "  for  after  giving  to  Congress  the  power 
"to  declare  war"  and  "to  raise  and  support  armies,"  they 
added  in  the  Constitution  these  emphatic  words,  —  "but  no 
appropriation  of  money  to  that  use  shall  be  for  a  longer  term  than 
two  years"  precisely  the  period  for  which  the  Representatives 


22  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

in  the  popular  branch  are  chosen.  Thus,  sir,  this  power  was 
not  given  to  Congress  simply,  but  in  effect  it  was  given  to 
the  House  of  Representatives ;  the  people  placing  it  where  they 
could  lay  their  hands  directly  upon  it  at  every  biennial  elec 
tion,  and  say  "yes"  or  "no  "  to  the  principles  or  policy  of  any 
war.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  this  popular  control  is  secured 
in  every  part  of  the  Constitution ;  for  not  only  do  the  people 
in  their  primary  capacity,  by  direct  suffrage,  elect  their  Repre 
sentatives  every  two  years,  but  in  case  of  a  vacancy  happening, 
no  power  save  that  of  the  people  themselves  is  able  to  fill  it. 
If  a  vacancy  happens  in  the  Senate,  the  Governor  of  a  State 
may  appoint  a  successor  till  the  Legislature  meet ;  but  if  it 
occur  "  in  the  representation  of  any  State,"  the  Constitution 
simply  declares  that  the  executive  authority  of  such  State  "  shall 
issue  writs  of  election  to  fill  such  vacancy"  —  leaving  to  the 
people  directly  the  choice  of  the  Representative.  It  is  more 
over  declared  in  the  Constitution,  "that  all  bills  for  revenue 
shall  originate  in  the  House  of  Representatives,"  thus  giving 
again  to  popular  control  the  power  of  the  "  purse "  which  is 
greater  than  the  power  of  the  "  sword "  —  as  without  it  the 
sword  has  "  neither  force  nor  edge."  Talk,  sir,  as  the  gentle 
man  from  Thomaston  has,  for  so  many  hours,  about  the  war 
power  being  lodged  exclusively  in  the  President!  The  gentle 
man  should  know,  eminent  as  he  is  esteemed  to  be  in  the 
knowledge  of  law,  that  without  the  assent  of  Congress  there 
can  be  no  war,  and  Congress  can  stop  the  war  at  any  moment 
it  chooses.  Without  the  assent  of  Congress  and  the  supply 
of  money  by  Congress,  the  Quartermaster  can  give  you  no 
transportation ;  the  Commissary  cannot  issue  a  ration ;  the 
Chief  of  Ordnance  cannot  furnish  a  cartridge ;  the  Paymaster 
cannot  give  a  private  a  single  month's  wages.  As  the  House 
of  Commons  in  England  controls  the  aristocratic  Chamber  of 
Lords  and  holds  in  check  the  power  of  the  Throne  by  having 
the  exclusive  right  to  originate  "  Supply  Bills,"  so,  sir,  our 
House  of  Representatives,  through  the  right  to  originate  bills 
of  revenue,  causes  the  fresh  and  vigorous  voice  of  the  people 
to  be  heard  against  the  longer-tenured  power  of  Senators  and 
the  individual  will  of  the  Executive.  In  attempting  thus  to 
strip  the  Representative  branch  of  its  rightful  prerogative  and 


WAR    POWER    OF    CONGRESS.  23 

of  the  thousand  incidental  powers  derived  from  it  and  through 
it,  the  gentleman  from  Thomaston  has  aimed  to  curtail  the  fran 
chise  of  the  people  and  to  surrender  their  rights  to  the  judg 
ment,  and  possibly  to  the  caprices,  of  a  single  man. 

I  beg  now,  sir,  to  controvert  another  position  of  the  gentle 
man  from  Thomaston  —  a  position  which  he  sought  to  fortify 
with  great  elaboration  of  argument.  He  has  quoted  the  Trea 
son  clause  of  the  Constitution,  and  has  stoutly  maintained  that 
the  armed  rebels  in  the  South  have  still  the  full  right  to  the 
protection  of  property  guaranteed  therein,  and  that  any  confis 
cation  of  their  property  or  estates  by  any  other  process  than  is 
there  laid  down  would  be  unconstitutional.  I  am  endeavoring 
to  state  the  position  of  the  gentleman  with  entire  candor,  as  I 
desire  to  meet  his  argument  throughout  in  that  spirit.  I  main 
tain,  sir,  in  opposition  to  this  view,  that  we  derive  the  right  to 
confiscate  the  property  and  liberate  the  slaves  of  rebels  from 
a  totally  different  source.  I  maintain  that  to-day  we  are  in  a 
state  of  civil  war — civil  war,  too,  of  the  most  gigantic  propor 
tions.  And  I  think  it  will  strike  this  House  as  a  singular  and 
significant  confession  of  the  unsoundness  of  the  gentleman's 
argument,  that  to  sustain  his  positions  he  had  to  deny  that  we 
are  engaged  in  civil  war  at  all.  He  stated,  much  to  the  amuse 
ment  of  the  House,  I  think,  that  it  was  not  a  civil  war  because 
Jefferson  Davis  was  not  seeking  to  wrest  the  Presidential  chair 
from  Abraham  Lincoln,  but  simply  to  carry  off  a  portion  of  the 
Union  in  order  to  form  a  separate  government.  Pray,  sir,  is 
not  Abraham  Lincoln  the  rightful  President  of  the  whole  country 
and  of  all  the  States,  and  is  it  not  interfering  as  much  with  his 
Constitutional  prerogative  to  dispute  his  authority  in  Georgia 
or  Louisiana  as  it  would  be  to  dispute  it  in  Maine  or  Illinois? 
Sir,  what  constitutes  a  civil  war?  That  is  settled  by  Interna 
tional  Law;  and  I  am  but  repeating  a  principle  familiar  to 
every  school-boy  when  I  read  from  Vattel  the  following  per 
tinent  declarations,  which  I  venture  to  say  never  were  and 
never  will  be  disputed  by  any  one  except  the  gentleman  from 
Thomaston :  — 

"  When  a  party  is  formed  in  a  State,  which  no  longer  obeys  the  sovereign, 
and  is  of  strength  sufficient  to  make  head  against  him ;  or  when  in  a  repub 
lic  the  nation  is  divided  into  two  opposite  factions,  and  both  sides  takes 


24  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

arms ;  this  is  called  a  civil  war.  .  .  .  The  sovereign  indeed  never  fails  to 
term  rebels  all  subjects  openly  resisting  him ;  but  when  these  become  of 
strength  sufficient  to  oppose  him,  so  that  he  finds  himself  compelled  to  make 
war  regularly  on  them,  he  must  be  contented  with  the  term  civil  war." 

And  as  we  are  engaged  in  civil  war,  what  is  the  result? 
Simply  that  the  contest  must  be  carried  on  as  between  foreign 
parties,  and  on  that  point  I  again  quote  Vattel :  — 

"  Whenever  a  numerous  party  thinks  it  has  a  right  to  resist  the  sovereign, 
and  finds  itself  able  to  declare  that  opinion  sword  in  hand,  the  war  is  to  be 
carried  on  between  them  in  the  same  manner  as  between  two  different 
nations." 

I  need  not  say,  sir,  that  we  are  proceeding  precisely  on  that 
principle  to-day.  On  what  other  ground  do  we  send  back  thou 
sands  of  traitors  taken  with  arms  in  their  hands,  as  exchanged 
prisoners,  instead  of  indicting,  trying  and  hanging  them  ?  On 
what  other  ground  are  we  continually  receiving  and  sending 
flags  of  truce  ?  On  what  other  ground  did  Howell  Cobb  come 
down  only  last  week  to  Fortress  Monroe  and  hold  a  parley 
with  General  Wool  as  to  a  systematic  exchange  of  prisoners? 
On  what  other  ground  do  we  blockade  the  Southern  ports?  On 
what  other  ground  did  President  Lincoln  but  a  few  days  since 
order  that  the  men  taken  from  the  Confederate  privateers 
should  be  removed  from  Moyamensing  Jail  and  treated  as 
prisoners  of  war?  This,  sir,  was  the  last  as  it  was  the  greatest 
concession,  and  it  leaves  us  to-day  in  the  attitude  of  practically 
conceding,  without  formally  granting,  to  the  so-called  Confeder 
ate  States  the  same  rights  of  war  that  we  would  accord  to  any 
belligerent  power;  and  I  understand  the  gentleman  from  Thom- 
aston  to  approve  this  course?  [Mr.  Gould  nodded  assent.] 
And  yet,  Mr.  Chairman,  while  conceding  all  these  rights  and 
immunities,  the  gentleman  tells  you  that  Congress  shall  not 
authorize  the  confiscation  of  the  property  or  the  liberation  of 
the  slaves  of  a  single  rebel  except  by  "due  process  of  law." 
In  other  words,  the  gentleman  gives  to  traitors  the  protection 
of  belligerents  outside  or  independent  of  the  Constitution, 
and  of  loyal  citizens  inside  or  under  the  Constitution,  at  one 
and  the  same  time.  He  denies  the  right  of  our  Government 
to  proceed  against  them  by  virtue  of  any  rights  acquired  from 
the  belligerent  character  of  parties,  or  indeed,  to  quote  his 


FEDERAL    POWER    IN    CIVIL    WAR.  25 

exact  words,  in  any  other  mode  than  by  "  due  process  of  law." 
The  argument  of  the  gentleman  gives  every  advantage  to  the 
rebels  and  imposes  every  disability  on  the  Federal  Government, 
and  in  assuming  this  ground  I  charge  the  gentleman  with  hav 
ing  advocated  the  cause  of  the  Confederacy  just  as  effectually 
as  though  he  had  appeared  here  its  avowed  champion  with  a 
retainer  in  his  pocket  from  the  Government  at  Richmond.  Sir, 
I  am  in  favor  of  conducting  this  contest  effectively  and  honor 
ably  ;  and  I  perceive  and  think  I  appreciate  the  policy  which 
our  Government,  however  reluctantly,  has  adopted  in  carrying 
on  hostilities  with  the  ordinary  usages  and  principles  of  war. 
Indeed,  after  the  rebellion  assumed  its  colossal  proportions  it 
was  quite  impossible  to  do  otherwise  without  encountering 
numberless  and  insuperable  embarrassments.  All  that  I  ask, 
sir,  is  that  we  shall  receive  as  good  as  we  give,  and  that  since 
we  are  forced  to  treat  these  rebels  as  public  enemies  and  incur 
all  the  disadvantages  resulting  therefrom,  we  shall  at  least  have 
the  corresponding  advantages  that  logically  pertain  to  our  posi 
tion,  and  shall  in  consequence  thereof  exercise  and  enforce  the 
rights  of  war  against  the  so-called  Confederates  so  long  as 
the  state  of  war  continues. 

In  pursuance  of  the  principles  I  have  enunciated,  I  lay  down 
the  proposition  as  broadly  as  my  language  can  express  it,  that 
every  power  and  prerogative  which  the  Federal  Government 
would  rightfully  possess  in  war  against  England,  France,  Brazil, 
Mexico,  or  any  other  foreign  power,  it  does  this  day  possess 
against  the  so-called  Confederate  States.  But  the  moment 
these  war  powers  are  carried  to  the  destruction  or  forfeiture  of 
the  property  of  a  rebel,  the  gentleman  from  Thomaston  cries 
out  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  violated  in 
the  section  where  Congress  is  prohibited  forfeiting  property 
"except  during  the  life  of  the  person  attainted"  of  treason. 
I  tell  the  gentleman  that  the  operation  of  that  clause  of  the 
Constitution  is  one  governing  the  civil  tribunals  of  the  land, 
where  courts  are  in  session,  juries  empaneled,  precepts  served, 
and  the  process  of  law  unobstructed.  If  he  contends  that  it 
is  applicable  to  a  condition  of  things  wherein  the  civil  power  of 
the  Government  has  ceased  to  be  operative  in  eleven  States,  he 
must  contend  by  parity  of  reasoning  that  every  other  provision 


26  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

of  the  Constitution  is  equally  operative,  and  that  the  state  of 
belligerence  does  not  supervene  with  its  own  well-defined  and 
self-protective  laws.  If  he  takes  this  ground,  and  there  is  none 
other  left  him,  I  ask  him,  whence  is  derived  the  power  to 
blockade  the  ports  of  the  Rebel  States?  The  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  says  expressly  that  "  no  preference  shall  be 
given  to  the  ports  of  one  State  over  those  of  another."  And 
yet  directly  in  the  face  of  this  inhibition,  a  blockade  of  the 
most  rigorous  character  has  been  instituted  by  which  Charles 
ton,  Savannah,  New  Orleans  and  all  other  Southern  ports  are 
cut  off  from  commerce,  while  New  York,  Boston,  Portland  and 
all  other  loyal  ports  are  left  in  the  free  and  unrestricted  enjoy 
ment  of  trade.  Whence  is  the  power  derived  to  do  this  ?  The 
gentleman  does  not  answer.  Is  it  an  unconstitutional  act 
because  in  apparent  conflict  with  the  letter  of  one  section  of 
that  instrument  ?  How  can  the  gentleman  justify  the  act  other 
than  by  the  war  power  of  the  Government  blockading  the 
ports  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States,  just  as  we  blockaded 
the  ports  of  Mexico  when  at  war  with  that  Republic  ? 

If  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Thomaston  were 
carried  to  its  legitimate  conclusion,  Mr.  Chairman,  your  Union 
armies  could  not  shoot  a  single  rebel  nor  imprison  a  single 
traitor,  for  the  Constitution  declares  that  "  no  person  shall  be 
deprived  of  life,  liberty  or  property  without  due  process  of  law." 
To  assume  the  ground  of  the  gentleman  from  Thomaston  with 
its  legitimate  sequences,  is  practically  to  give  up  the  contest. 
For  he  tells  you,  and  he  certainly  repeated  it  a  score  of  times, 
that  you  cannot  deprive  these  rebels  of  their  property  except 
44  by  due  process  of  law,"  and  at  the  same  time  he  confesses 
that  within  the  rebel  territory  it  is  impossible  to  serve  any 
precept  or  enforce  any  verdict.  At  the  same  time  he  declares 
that  we  have  not  belligerent  rights  because  the  contest  is  not 
a  civil  war.  Pray  what  kind  of  a  war  is  it?  The  gentleman 
acknowledges  that  the  rebels  are  traitors,  and  if  so  they 
must  be  engaged  in  some  kind  of  war,  because  the  Constitu 
tion  declares  that  "treason  against  the  United  States  shall 
consist  only  in  levying  war  against  them."  It  is  therefore  war 
on  their  side.  It  must  also  be  war  on  ours,  and  if  so,  what 
kind  of  war  ? 


PRECEDENT    IN    MEXICAN    WAR.  27 

Mr.  GOULD  rose  and  said  that  he  would  define  it  as  domestic 
war.  (Laughter.) 

Mr.  ELAINE  (resuming).  Domestic  war !  Well,  Mr.  Chair 
man,  I  think  we  shall  learn  something  before  this  discussion 
is  closed.  Domestic  war !  I  have  heard  of  domestic  woollens, 
domestic  sheetings,  and  domestic  felicity,  but  a  "  domestic  war  " 
is  something  entirely  new  under  the  sun.  All  the  writers  of 
international  law  that  I  have  ever  read,  speak  of  two  kinds  of 
war,  foreign  and  civil,  Vattel  will,  I  suppose,  have  a  new  edi 
tion  with  annotations  by  Gould,  in  which  "  domestic  war " 
will  be  defined  and  illustrated  as  a  contest  not  quite  foreign, 
not  quite  civil,  but  one  in  which  the  rebellious  party  have  at 
one  and  the  same  time  all  the  rights  of  peaceful  citizens  and  all 
the  immunities  of  alien  enemies  —  for  that  is  precisely  what  the 
gentleman  by  his  argument  claims  for  the  Southern  secessionists. 

But,  sir,  I  have  been  digressing.  The  line  of  my  argument 
was  leading  me  to  show  the  rights  of  war  as  denned  and 
accorded  by  international  law  —  having  already  demonstrated 
that  whatever  these  rights  may  be  we  have  them  to-day  as 
against  the  so-called  Confederate  States.  I  have  briefly  stated 
what  these  rights  are  in  respect  to  the  property  of  the  enemy, 
as  denned  in  books  of  European  and  American  authority.  I 
propose  in  addition  to  show  what  we  as  a  nation  have  construed 
them  to  be  in  practice.  I  propose  to  show  to  the  House  that  in 
the  Mexican  war  our  government  through  instructions  issuing 
from  the  War  Department,  then  presided  over  by  one  of  the 
most  eminent  of  American  statesmen  (the  late  Governor  Marcy), 
sanctioned  the  very  doctrines  I  have  advocated.  In  a  letter  of 
instruction  to  General  Taylor,  Sept.  22,  1846,  Governor  Marcy 
laid  down  the  principle  that  "  an  invading  army  has  the  unques 
tionable  right  to  draw  its  supplies  from  the  enemy  without  pay 
ing  for  them,  to  require  contributions  for  its  support  and  to 
make  the  enemy  feel  the  weight  of  the  war ; "  and  General 
Taylor  was  accordingly  instructed  to  proceed  in  the  campaign 
on  this  principle.  A  few  months  later  President  Polk,  in  a 
letter  to  his  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Robert  J.  Walker,  main 
tained  "  the  right  of  the  conqueror  to  levy  contributions  on  the 
enemy  in  their  seaports,  towns  or  provinces,  and  to  apply  the 
same  to  defray  the  expanses  of  the  war."  On  this  principle  he 


28  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

seized  the  Mexican  Custom  Houses,  levied  the  duties  and  turned 
all  the  receipts  into  the  coffers  of  the  Union,  and,  in  a  letter  to 
the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  March  31,  1847,  Mr.  Polk  "claimed 
arid  exercised  this  as  a  belligerent  right." 

Against  the  Mexicans,  sir,  this  was  an  indisputably  proper 
exercise  of  the  belligerent  power.  Viewed  externally,  other 
nations  could  do  nothing  else  than  acquiesce  in  it.  But  from 
an  internal  point  of  view,  a  very  grave  question  arose  in  regard 
to  it,  and  it  was  the  same  which  divides  the  gentleman  from 
Thomaston  and  myself  in  one  branch  of  this  discussion  to-day. 
That  question  was  whether  the  President  had  the  right  to 
direct  this  seizure  of  the  Custom  Houses  and  this  collection  of 
duties,  or  whether  it  was  a  matter  belonging  primarily  and  ex 
clusively  to  Congress  as  the  war-making  power  of  the  Govern 
ment,  entitled  to  "  prescribe  rules  concerning  captures  on  land 
and  water."  The  subject  was  discussed  with  some  warmth  at 
the  time  in  both  branches  of  Congress,  and  though  Mr.  Folk's 
course  was  sustained  by  the  partisan  majority  in  both  Senate 
and  House,  the  weight  of  the  argument  was  clearly  against  him 
—  Mr.  Webster  demonstrating  with  his  ponderous  logic  that  the 
power  did  not  belong  to  the  President.  The  subject  was  of 
such  importance  as  to  call  for  notice  and  discussion  in  the  late 
edition  of  Kent's  Commentaries,  where  after  minutely  stating 
what  President  Polk  had  done,  the  learned  commentator  makes 
the  following  remarks :  — 

"  All  these  rights  of  war  undoubtedly  belong  to  the  conqueror  or  nation 
who  holds  foreign  places  and  countries  by  conquest ;  but  the  exercise  of 
those  rights  and  powers,  except  those  that  temporarily  arise  from  necessity, 
belong  to  that  power  in  the  government  to  which  the  prerogative  of  war  is 
constitutionally  confided.  .  .  .  These  fiscal  and  commercial  regulations, 
issued  and  enforced  at  the  mere  pleasure  of  a  President,  would  seem  to  press 
strongly  upon  the  Constitutional  power  of  Congress  to  raise  and  support 
armies,  to  lay  and  collect  taxes,  duties,  and  imports,  and  to  regulate  com 
merce  with  foreign  nations,  and  to  declare  war,  and  make  rules  for  the  gov 
ernment  and  regulation  of  the  land  and  naval  forces,  and  concerning  captures 
on  land  and  water,  and  to  define  offenses  against  the  law  of  nations. 
Though  the  Constitution  vests  the  executive  power  in  the  President,  and 
declares  him  to  be  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and  navy  of  the  United 
States,  these  powers  must  necessarily  be  subordinate  to  the  legislative  power 
in  Congress.  It  would  appear  to  me  to  be  the  policy  or  true  construction  of 
this  simple  and  general  grant  of  executive  power  to  the  President,  not  to 
suffer  it  to  interfere  with  those  specific  powers  of  Congress  which  are  more 
safely  deposited  in  the  legislative  department,  and  that  the  powers  thus 
assumed  by  the  President  do  not  belong  to  him,  but  to  Congress." 


AUTHORITY    OF    WEBSTER    AND    KENT.  29 

I  very  much  fear  that  the  extensive  law  library  of  the  gentle 
man  from  Thomaston  is  not  graced  with  the  latest  edition  of 
Kent,  or  he  would  hardly  have  ventured  to  lay  down  doc 
trines  and  principles  which  are  so  pointedly  denied  by  the  great 
Chancellor. 

This  construction,  enunciated  by  Webster  and  Kent,  I  main 
tain,  sir,  is  understood  to  be,  and  in  his  official  papers  is  de 
clared  to  be,  the  doctrine  of  President  Lincoln,  whom  the 
gentleman  has  endeavored  so  ingeniously  to  misrepresent  in  his 
argument  and  to  damage  by  his  support.  The  gentleman  stated 
that  the  President  had  reversed  General  Fremont's  order  of  con 
fiscation  because  of  its  inexpediency  and  tendency  to  "  raise  a 
great  row."  The  simple  fact  of  the  record  is,  and  that  is  all  we 
have  to  appeal  to,  that  the  President  stated  in  his  letter  to  Gen 
eral  Fremont,  that  "  he  thought  it  proper  to  adhere  to  and  not 
transcend  the  law  of  Congress"  —  and  as  General  Fremont's 
order  did  transcend  the  Confiscation  Act  of  the  extra  session  of 
Congress,  he  was  directed  that  it  be  changed  to  conform  to  that 
Act.  The  meaning  of  this  declaration  of  the  President  was  that 
Congress  and  Congress  only  had  the  right  to  do  that  which 
General  Fremont,  in  his  proclamation,  proposed  to  do  ;  and  this 
meaning  was  made  still  more  distinctly  manifest  by  the  follow 
ing  declarations  in  the  message  of  the  President  at  the  begin 
ning  of  the  present  session  of  Congress.  I  quote : 

"I  have,  in  every  case,  thought  it  proper  to  keep  the  integrity  of  the 
Union  prominent  as  the  primary  object  of  the  contest  on  our  part,  leaving 
all  questions  which  are  not  of  vital  military  importance  to  the  more  delib 
erate  action  of  the  Legislature. 

"  So,  also,  obeying  the  dictates  of  prudence  as  well  as  the  obligations  of 
law,  instead  of  transcending  I  have  adhered  to  the  act  of  Congress  to  con 
fiscate  property  used  for  insurrectionary  purposes.  If  a  new  law  upon  the 
same  subject  shall  be  proposed,  its  propriety  will  be  duly  considered.  The 
Union  must  be  preserved;  and  hence  all  indispensable  means  must  be 
employed." 

General  Halleck,  who  is  no  less  a  lawyer  than  a  military 
chieftain,  has  deliberately  expressed  the  opinion  that  he  has  no 
right  to  liberate  a  single  negro,  except  as  authorized  to  do  so  by 
the  war  power  of  Congress  —  thereby  very  clearly  and  closely 
following  the  admirable  exposition  of  the  Constitution  as  laid 
down  by  Chief  Justice  Marshall  in  the  famous  case  of  Brown 
vs.  the  United  States. 


30  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

John  Quincy  Adams,  whose  name  is  respected  wherever  popu 
lar  liberty  has  an  advocate,  formulated  the  following  proposition 
on  the  floor  of  the  House  of  Representatives : 

"From  the  instant  that  your  slave-holding  States  become  the  theatre  of 
war,  civil  or  foreign,  from  that  instant  the  war  powers  of  Congress  extend 
to  interference  with  the  institution  of  slavery,  in  every  way  in  which  it  can 
be  interfered  with — from  a  claim  of  indemnity  for  slaves  taken  or  destroyed, 
to  the  cession  of  the  State  burdened  with  slavery  to  a  foreign  power. 

"  If  civil  war  come,  if  insurrection  come,  is  this  beleaguered  Capital,  is 
this  besieged  Government  to  see  millions  of  its  subjects  in  arms,  and  have 
no  right  to  break  the  fetters  which  they  are  forging  into  swords?  No !  The 
war  power  of  the  Government  can  sweep  this  Institution  into  the  Gulf." 

In  a  House  full  of  able,  brilliant  Southern  lawyers,  Wise  and 
Dromgoole  and  Rhett  and  Marshall  among  them,  not  one  dared 
to  dispute  the  proposition.  Mark  the  extent  to  which  Mr. 
Adams  carries  the  war  power  of  Congress  —  "even  to  the  ces 
sion  of  the  State  burdened  with  slavery  to  a  foreign  power!" 

There  was  one  error,  Mr.  Chairman,  which  seemed  to  haunt 
the  gentleman  from  Thomaston  very  persistently  throughout 
his  argument  —  and  that  was  the  alleged  impossibility  of  bring 
ing  the  war  power  to  bear  against  the  rebels  without  first  con 
ceding  that  they  had  actually  carried  their  States  out  of  the 
Union.  He  stated  many  times  that  if  the  rebel  States  are 
integral  members  of  the  Union,  the  contest  with  the  rebels 
themselves  cannot  be  carried  on  as  a  war,  and  conversely,  to 
concede  that  it  is  war,  is  to  concede  that  the  States  have 
actually  seceded  and  set  up  a  separate  power.  No  statement 
could  be  more  fallacious,  as  the  gentleman  himself  will  see  by 
recurring  to  fundamental  principles.  The  State  cannot  be 
compromised  or  destroyed  by  the  wrongful  acts  of  ever  so  large 
a  majority  of  its  people.  The  wrong-doers,  by  the  very  force  of 
their  numbers,  may  and  do  acquire  certain  immunities  against 
individual  punishment,  as  I  have  already  shown,  but  they  do 
not  acquire  the  right  to  change  the  relations  of  the  State.  I 
maintain  as  stoutly  as  he  does,  that  Virginia  and  Tennessee,  and 
all  the  rest  of  the  eleven,  are  to-day  States  in  the  Union,  and 
that  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  nation  are  operative 
within  their  borders.  A  rebellious  force,  however,  having  risen 
to  such  strength  as  to  thwart  the  civil  power  and  prevent  the 
actual  operation  of  the  laws,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  nation, 


ARE    THE    STATES    IN    THE    UNION?  31 

through  the  war  power,  to  vindicate  its  authority,  so  that  a 
Constitution  which  is  operative  may  be  actually  operating,  and 
laws  which  are  in  force  may  be  really  enforced.  The  gentle 
man's  laborious  effort,  therefore,  to  demolish  the  theory  of  Sen 
ator  Sumner  in  regard  to  the  suicide  of  the  Rebel  States,  has 
no  pertinency  whatever  in  this  discussion.  All  the  positions  I 
have  assumed,  and  all  the  arguments  I  have  made  use  of  to  sus 
tain  these  positions,  have  expressly  negatived  the  theory  of  Mr. 
Sumner,  and  therefore  I  am  not  called  upon  to  notice  it  further. 
I  have  merely  to  say  in  leaving  this  topic  that  the  argument 
which  maintains  that  the  States  must  necessarily  be  out  of  the 
Union  before  a  contest  with  their  rebellious  inhabitants  could 
be  conducted  as  a  civil  war,  is  nothing  short  of  an  Irish  bull  of 
the  most  grotesque  description.  If  the  States  are  not  members 
of  the  Union  they  are  a  foreign  power,  and  of  course  a  contest 
with  their  people  could  not  be  a  civil  war.  The  very  essence 
of  a  civil  war  consists  in  its  being  a  strife  between  members 
properly  subject  to  the  same  sovereign  authority ;  and  the 
dilemma  herein  suggested  is  the  same  which  has  driven  the 
gentleman  to  deny,  as  he  has  done,  that  this  contest  is  either  a 
"  foreign  war  "  or  a  "  civil  war."  He  was  compelled  to  manu 
facture  a  new  kind  of  war  —  "domestic"  he  styled  it  —  in 
order  as  he  hoped,  to  escape  the  conclusions  which  some  of  his 
propositions  led  to.  The  gentleman  setting  out  with  radically 
erroneous  premises  could  do  nothing  else  than  wander  away 
from  the  landmarks  of  truth  and  sound  logic  —  and  there  he 
continues  to  wander  "  in  endless  mazes  lost." 

In  summing  up  these  resolves,  sir,  I  maintain  that  they  pro 
pose  nothing  which  may  not  be  properly  done  under  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States.  They  are  moderate  resolutions 
—  conservative  in  doctrine,  and  well  guarded  in  expression.  I 
believe  that  the  adoption  of  their  substance  by  Congress  would 
be  beneficial  to  the  Union  cause  :  I  believe  that  such  measures 
are  especially  dreaded  by  the  rebels.  I  feel  assured,  sir,  that  a 
Confiscation  Act  would  prove  verily  a  terror  unto  evil-doers. 
I  have  said  that  the  legislation  demanded  is  entirely  within 
the  power  of  Congress  without  infringing  the  Constitution  or 
rather  in  direct  pursuance  of  the  war  power  of  that  instrument 
as  expounded  by  Hamilton  and  Henry,  by  Adams  and  Webster, 


32  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

by  Marshall  and  Kent.  All  that  I  have  proposed  and  advo 
cated  will  in  no  wise  conflict  with  the  Constitution,  and  I  think 
the  rebellion  will  be  subdued  without  resorting  to  extra  Con 
stitutional  measures.  But  lest  the  gentleman  should  infer  that 
I  shrink  from  the  logical  consequences  of  some  propositions 
which  I  have  laid  down  as  ultimate  steps,  I  tell  him  frankly  that 
if  the  life  of  the  nation  seemed  to  demand  the  violation  of  the 
Constitution,  I  would  violate  it  —  and  in  taking  this  ground  I 
am  but  repeating  the  expression  of  President  Lincoln  in  his 
message,  when  he  declared  that  "  it  were  better  to  violate  one 
provision  than  that  all  should  perish."  I  will  give  a  higher 
and  more  venerable  authority  than  President  Lincoln,  for  the 
same  doctrine.  No  less  a  personage  than  Thomas  Jefferson 
wrote  the  following  sentiments,  in  a  letter  to  J.  B.  Colvin,  from 
his  retirement  at  Monticello,  Sept.  22,  1810  : 

"  The  question  you  propose,  whether  circumstances  do  not  sometimes 
occur  which  make  it  a  duty  in  officers  of  high  trust  to  assume  authorities 
beyond  the  law,  is  easy  of  solution  in  principle,  but  sometimes  embarrass 
ing  in  practice.  A  strict  observance  of  the  written  laws  is  doubtless  one 
of  the  high  duties  of  a  good  citizen  ;  but  it  is  not  the  highest.  The  laws  of 
necessity,  of  self-preservation,  of  saving  our  country  wKen  in  danger,  are  of 
higher  obligation.  To  lose  our  country  by  a  scrupulous  adherence  to  written 
law,  would  be  to  lose  the  law  itself,  with  life,  liberty,  property,  and  all  those 
who  are  enjoying  them  with  us;  thus  absurdly  sacrificing  the  end  to  the 
means." 


This  doctrine  cuts  right  athwart  and  scatters  to  the  four 
winds  of  heaven  the  whole  argument  of  the  gentleman.  He 
sticks  to  forms  :  I  contend  for  substance.  He  sacrifices  the  end 
to  the  means  :  1  stand  ready  to  use  the  means  essential  to  the 
end.  I  uphold  the  doctrines  of  Jefferson  and  Lincoln  :  he 
assumes  a  ground  which  both  of  those  statesmen  have  de 
nounced  and  execrated. 

I  have  been  discussing  these  questions,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  no 
partisan  spirit.  I  feel  none.  As  a  Republican,  I  have  been 
among  the  foremost  to  welcome  loyal  Democrats  to  a  hearty 
and  generous  co-operation  in  sustaining  the  measures  necessary 
to  vindicate  the  authority  of  the  Union.  I  recognize  the  sena 
tor  from  Knox  [Colonel  Smart]  whom  I  am  glad  to  see  among 
my  auditors,  as  a  cordial  co-laborer  in  the  good  cause  :  my  friend 
across  the  hall  from  Oldtown  [Mr.  Sevvall]  I  cordially  greet  and 


REPUBLICAN    MAGNANIMITY.  33 

warmly  welcome.  I  mention  these  gentlemen  because  they  are 
this  moment  before  me,  and  because  they  are  types  of  many 
other  loyal  Democrats  who  hold  the  same  good  principles.  The 
gentleman  from  Thomaston,  by  the  doctrines  he  has  advocated, 
has  placed  himself  outside  the  pale,  and  until  he  recants  his 
errors  we  cannot  receive  him  into  fellowship.  I  remember,  and 
I  do  not  quote  it  irreverently,  the  injunction  to  the  Church  to 
add  to  itself  only  "  such  as  shall  be  saved." 

I  claim,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  in  the  whole  history  of  partisan 
organizations  not  one  can  be  found  which  has  acted  with  the 
generosity  and  liberality  that  have  characterized  the  Republi 
cans  since  the  outbreak  of  the  rebellion.  In  the  State  of  Ohio, 
sir,  with  sixty  thousand  partisan  majority,  the  Republicans 
patriotically  and  most  liberally  gave  the  gubernatorial  nomina 
tion  last  year  to  a  lifelong  Democrat  —  David  Tod,  who  presided 
over  the  Convention  that  nominated  Mr.  Douglas  for  the  Presi 
dency  —  and  they  elected  him  by  an  overwhelming  majority. 
With  similar  unselfishness  they  allowed  one  branch  of  the  Legis 
lature  to  fall  under  the  control  of  those  who  were  supposed 
to  be  loyal  Democrats.  And  what  is  the  result?  To-day  the 
Democrats  in  the  branch  of  the  Legislature  controlled  by  them, 
oppose  and  may  possibly  defeat  the  re-election  to  the  United 
States  Senate  of  that  most  earnest,  brave,  and  time  man,  Ben 
jamin  F.  Wade.  That  is  the  return  the  Republicans  are  re 
ceiving  for  their  lavish  generosity  towards  political  opponents. 

In  New  York,  sir,  equal  generosity  was  shown  by  the  Repub 
licans  at  the  last  election.  They  went  so  far  even  as  to  place 
their  lifelong  opponent,  Daniel  S.  Dickinson,  at  the  head  of 
their  State  ticket,  and  gave  the  Democrats  half  of  the  remain 
der  of  the  nominees,  all  of  whom  were  triumphantly  elected. 
In  return,  they  have  received  nothing  but  reviling  and  abuse. 
I  ask  any  gentleman  to  point  out  a  single  locality  where,  the 
Democrats  having  a  clear  majority,  a  Republican  has  received 
the  slightest  recognition.  To-day  we  are  invited  by  the  gentle 
man  from  Thomaston  patriotically  to  abandon  our  entire  party 
organization.  Magnanimous  advice  !  Disinterested  counsel !  I 
say  to  the  Republicans  of  this  House,  that  while  I  am  opposed 
to  stirring  up  partisan  feeling  during  this  crisis  in  the  affairs  of 
the  nation,  yet  we  must  look  well  to  it  that  we  sustain  with 


34  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

increased  vigor  the  Administration  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  which 
we  brought  into  power,  and  for  whose  acts  we  shall  be  held 
responsible.  While,  then,  we  will  welcome  to  our  political  fire 
side  all  who  are  disposed  to  co-operate  with  us,  we  will  jealously 
guard  against  all  these  insidious  attempts  to  disrupt  that  party 
organization,  which  is  alone  able  to  give  to  the  Administration 
an  efficient  and  permanent  support.  And  when  I  urge  this 
policy  I  am  sure  that  I  speak  no  less  the  sentiments  of  patriotic 
Republicans  than  of  those  loyal  Democrats  who  intend  to  stand 
by  the  Administration  to  the  end  of  this  struggle  with  rebellion 
and  treason. 

I  confess,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  distrust  the  sincerity  and  endur 
ance  of  the  gentleman  from  Thomaston  as  a  supporter  of  Mr. 
Lincoln.  He  has  been  led  to  zealous  expressions  in  favor  of 
the  President  because  he  imagines  there  is  to  be  a  serious  dif 
ference  between  the  Executive  policy  and  the  Congressional 
policy  in  the  conduct  of  the  war.  In  that  I  am  sure  he  will 
find  himself  in  error.  The  President  and  Congress  are  both 
trying  to  follow  the  wisest  course  possible,  and  there  will  be  no 
divergence  in  their  ways  when  the  discussion  has  closed.  We 
have  this  very  morning,  sir,  heard  from  the  President  in  a  com 
munication  of  as  great  importance  as  any  that  has  ever  ema 
nated  from  the  Executive  Mansion.  I  hold  in  my  hand  his 
message  sent  to  Congress  yesterday,  in  which  he  proposes  com 
pensation  to  the  States  that  may  agree  to  abolish  slavery.  I 
want  to  know  from  the  gentleman  from  Thomaston  if  he  sup 
ports  the  President  in  that  policy  ? 

Mr.  GOULD.  I  understand  the  President's  proposition  to  be 
to  compensate  all  the  slave-owners,  loyal  and  disloyal  alike,  and 
in  that  view,  as  a  peace  measure,  I  might  possibly  go  for  it.  I 
would  not  say  that  I  would  support  it  otherwise. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  A  most  remarkable  interpretation  of  the  Pres 
ident's  position,  truly !  The  gentleman  thinks  that  Abraham 
Lincoln  is  solemnly  proposing  to  pay  the  rebels  hard  cash  for 
their  slaves,  and  thus  to  replenish  their  treasury,  otherwise  so 
nearly  exhausted.  A  brilliant  policy  indeed  !  Hut  this  con 
struction  which  the  gentleman  puts  on  the  Message  is  in  perfect 
keeping  with  the  determination  which  he  has  steadily  shown 
to  put  the  estates  and  the  slaves  of  rebels  on  the  same  foot- 


VICTORIES    FOR    THE    UNION.  35 

ing  and  under  the  same  protection  as  those  of  loyal  men.  If 
negroes  are  to  be  paid  for,  the  gentleman  is  determined  that 
the  rebels  shall  have  their  full  share  of  the  cash.  I  think  Presi 
dent  Lincoln  would  be  slightly  surprised  if  any  one  should  tell 
him  that  the  country  understood  his  proposition  in  that  way ; 
and  yet,  unless  it  does  mean  that,  the  gentleman  from  Thomas- 
ton  says  he  will  not  support  it  —  thus  at  the  first  practical 
test,  deserting  the  President  whom  he  has  eulogized  so  highly. 

I  read,  sir,  in  that  message,  something  more  than  a  great 
proposition  for  compensated  emancipation.  I  read  in  it  a  decla 
ration  as  plain  as  language  can  make,  that  whatever  measures 
may  be  deemed  necessary  to  crush  out  this  rebellion  speedily 
and  effectually,  will  be  unhesitatingly  adopted.  What  else  does 
the  President  mean  when  he  says  that  "  all  indispensable  means 
must  be  employed  for  the  preservation  of  the  Union,"  that 
"the  war  must  continue  "  as  long  as  resistance  continues,  with 
out  regard  to  the  ruin  which  must  attend  it?  What  does  the 
President  mean  by  this  language  ?  Still  more,  what  does  he 
mean  when  he  declares  that  "  such  measures  as  may  obviously 
promise  great  efficiency  towards  ending  the  struggle  must  and 
will  come  "  ?  I  ask  the  gentleman  what  the  President  means  by 
that,  and  he  refuses  to  answer  me.  It  means  the  adoption  of 
precisely  such  measures  as  we  are  discussing  here  to-day,  and 
these  resolutions  a«re  but  sustaining  the  already  foreshadowed 
policy  of  the  President,  whenever  the  necessity  for  their  en 
forcement  arises,  or  whenever  they  may,  in  his  own  language, 
"promise  great  efficiency  towards  ending  the  struggle." 

This  mighty  struggle,  sir,  will  close  with  victory  for  the 
Union  and  for  Constitutional  Liberty.  The  triumphs  at  Mill 
Spring,  at  Roanoke,  at  Henry,  and  at  Donelson,  are  but  the 
earnest  of  the  unbroken  success  which,  under  the  vigorous  coun 
sels  now  controlling  the  army,  are  to  attend  the  Union  cause. 
It  is  not  to  be  as  it  has  been.  In  the  past  autumn  and  early 
winter  our  prospects  seemed  dark  and  dreary.  We  closed  the 
year  with  those  terrible  disasters  at  Big  Bethel,  at  Bull  Run,  at 
Ball's  Bluff,  unredeemed  ;  and  our  national  energies  seemed 
paralyzed  with  inaction  and  with  treason.  The  war  was  being 
conducted  in  a  manner  that  never  did  and  never  will  and  never 
can  achieve  any  thing  but  misfortune  and  disgrace.  It  was  a 


36  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

war  of  half  measures,  painfully  parallel  in  policy  with  that 
which  in  England,  under  the  temporizing  expedients  urged  by 
such  leaders  as  Essex  and  Manchester  and  Northumberland, 
had  well-nigh  sacrificed  the  popular  cause  in  the  contest  with 
the  first  Charles  —  a  policy  which  is  thus  described  and  de 
nounced  by  that  memorable  historian  and  statesman  of  England 
whose  untimely  death,  two  years  ago,  was  so  deeply  deplored 
on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic. 

"  If  there  be  any  truth  established  by  the  universal  experience  of  nations, 
it  is  this :  that  to  carry  the  spirit  of  peace  into  war,  is  a  weak  and  cruel 
policy.  The  time  of  negotiation  is  the  time  for  deliberation  and  delay. 
But  when  an  extreme  case  calls  for  that  remedy,  which  is  in  its  own  nature 
most  violent,  and  which,  in  such  cases,  is  a  remedy  only  because  it  is  violent, 
it  is  idle  to  think  of  mitigating  and  diluting.  Languid  war  can  do  nothing 
which  negotiation  or  submission  will  not  do  better;  and  to  act  on  any  other 
principle,  is  not  to  save  blood  and  money,  but  to  squander  them." 

As  an  apposite  illustration  of  the  pregnant  truth  thus  enunci 
ated  by  Lord  Macaulay,  I  close  by  quoting  the  well-known  dec 
laration  of  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  "  that  the  failure  of  General 
McClellan  to  attack  Manassas  in  December  last  will  cost  this 
nation  three  hundred  millions  of  dollars  and  thirty  thousand 
precious  lives." 


NOMINATION  FOR  CONGRESS.  37 


SPEECH    OF   MR.    ELAINE   ACCEPTING   HIS   FIRST 
NOMINATION    TO    CONGRESS. 


[Unanimously  conferred  upon  him  by  a  Republican  Convention  held  at 
Waterville,  Maine,  July  8,  1862,  Honorable  Anson  P.  Merrill,  the  sitting 
Member,  having  previously  declined  a  re-election.  ] 

MR.  CHAIRMAN  AND  GENTLEMEN  OF  THE  CONVENTION, — 
I  am  here  to  acknowledge  with  sincere  thanks  the  honor 
which  you  have  conferred  upon  me  by  selecting  me  as  your 
candidate  for  Representative  in  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress. 
The  unanimity  of  your  action  is  to  me  one  of  its  most  embar 
rassing  features,  for  it  implies  a  confidence  in  my  fitness  for  the 
position  which  I  myself  may  well  distrust.  I  can  only  pledge 
my  best  intentions  and  my  most  earnest  efforts  to  serve  this 
constituency  faithfully  and  zealously,  should  the  nomination 
this  day  made  be  ratified  at  the  polls. 

The  Kennebec  District  —  the  name  which  this  county  has 
always  given  to  the  Congressional  District  in  which  it  has  been 
included  at  each  decennial  apportionment  —  has  established  a 
character  at  home  and  abroad  which  is  difficult  to  live  up  to. 
The  distinguished  gentleman  who  now  represents  it  (and  whose 
voluntary  retirement  gives  you  this  opportunity  to  place  me 
under  deep  obligation  by  the  bestowmerit  of  your  confidence) 
has  won  great  and  important  victories  on  hard-fought  political 
fields,  and,  in  connection  with  the  present  Vice-President  of 
the  United  States,  has  done  more  than  any  other  living  man  to 
overthrow  the  Democratic  party  of  Maine.  He  retires  from 
public  life  full  of  honors,  and  with  the  unstinted  confidence 
and  attachment  of  the  Republicans  of  the  entire  State. 

But  long  before  Mr.  Merrill's  participation  in  political  affairs, 
the  old  Kennebec  District  had  won  great  prominence  in  Con 
gress  by  the  ability,  the  ripe  culture,  the  superb  talent  for 


38  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

debate  exhibited  by  two  gentlemen  who  represented  it  from 
1825  to  1841  —  Peleg  Sprague  and  George  Evans.  I  see  before 
me  gray-haired  men  whose  political  activity  is  stirred  afresh  by 
the  memory  of  the  contests  they  waged  in  this  district  under 
the  leadership  of  those  young  men  —  for  each  was  in  his  early 
thirties  when  called  to  lead  the  National  Republican  forces 
against  the  Democratic  dynasty  of  Jackson  and  Van  Buren. 

Nor  should  I  fail  to  name  the  able  editor,  the  sincere  friend, 
the  judicious  adviser,  the  upright  man,  Luther  Severance,  who 
after  promoting  the  elections  of  Mr.  Sprague  and  Mr.  Evans  with 
unsurpassed  activity  and  zeal,  was  rewarded  with  succession  to 
the  seat  to  which  they  had  given  eminent  distinction.  If  you 
will  pardon  the  personal  reference,  I  regarded  it  as  the  chief 
honor  of  my  life,  before  you  crowned  me  with  your  favor  to-day, 
that  I  followed  Luther  Severance,  longo  intervallo,  in  the  editor 
ship  of  the  Kennebec  Journal,  which  he  had  founded  and  nur 
tured,  and  to  which  he  had  given  character  and  prominence 
throughout  the  State.  There  have  perhaps  been  more  brilliant 
men  in  Maine  than  Luther  Severance,  but  not  one  who  ever 
enjoyed  the  public  confidence  in  a  higher  degree  or  repaid  that 
confidence  more  amply  by  an  honorable  and  stainless  life. 

It  is  not  wise  for  candidates  to  indulge  in  profuse  promises. 
The  Representative  must  be  tested  by  his  acts  rather  than  by 
his  professions.  I  deem  it  my  duty,  however,  to  say  that  if 
I  am  called  to  a  seat  in  Congress,  I  shall  go  there  with  a 
determination  to  stand  heartily  and  unreservedly  by  the  Admin 
istration  of  Abraham  Lincoln.  In  the  success  of  that  Adminis 
tration,  under  the  good  Providence  of  God,  rests,  I  solemnly 
believe,  the  fate  of  the  American  Union.  If  we  cannot  subdue 
the  Rebellion  through  the  agency  of  the  Administration,  there 
is  no  other  power  given  under  Heaven  among  men  to  which 
we  can  appeal.  Hence  I  repeat,  that  I  shall  conceive  it  to  be 
my  duty,  as  your  Representative,  to  be  the  unswerving  adherent 
of  the  policy  and  measures  which  the  President  in  his  wisdom 
may  adopt.  The  case  is  one,  in  the  present  exigency,  where 
men  loyal  to  the  Union  cannot  divide.  The  President  is  Com- 
mander-in-Chief  of  our  land  and  naval  forces,  and  while  he  may 
be  counseled  he  must  not  be  opposed.  It  is  well  to  recall  the 
lesson  of  that  adage  which  teaches  that  one  bad  general  is 


NOMINATION  FOR  CONGRESS.  39 

better  than  two  good  ones.     Let  us  then  discourage  divisions 
and  encourage  harmony. 

In  this  way  alone,  gentlemen,  can  we  preserve  that  unity  of 
action  among  the  loyal  people  so  essential  to  the  maintenance 
of  our  Nationality.  That  unity  once  broken,  we  can  have  no 
well-founded  hope  of  success.  We  hear  a  great  deal  of  talk 
about  the  base  of  operations  in  the  war;  at  one  time  on  the 
Rappahannock  River,  at  another  on  the  York,  and  at  still  an 
other  on  the  James.  But  there  is  one  base  of  operations 
stronger  than  all  these,  and  that  is  on  the  united  hearts  and  the 
united  action  of  the  loyal  people  in  these  States.  That  once 
destroyed,  all  other  bases  of  operation'  are  gone. 

The  great  object  with  us  all  is  to  subdue  the  Rebellion  — 
speedily,  effectually,  finally.  In  our  march  to  that  end  we  must 
crush  all  intervening  obstacles.  If  slavery,  or  any  other  "  insti 
tution,"  stands  in  the  way,  it  must  be  removed.  Perish  all 
things  else,  the  National  life  must  be  saved.  My  individual 
convictions  of  what  may  be  needful  are  perhaps  in  advance  of 
those  entertained  by  some,  and  less  radical  than  those  conscien 
tiously  held  by  others.  Whether  they  are  the  one  or  the  other, 
however,  I  do  not  wish  to  see  an  attempt  made  to  carry  them 
out  until  it  can  be  done  by  an  Administration  sustained  by  the 
resistless  energy  of  the  loyal  masses.  I  think  myself  those 
masses  are  rapidly  adopting  the  idea  that  to  smite  the  Rebellion 
its  malignant  cause  must  be  smitten,  and  that  to  preserve  the 
Union  all  agencies  willing  to  work  for  its  preservation  must  be 
freely  and  energetically  used.  That,  I  believe,  is  the  conclusion 
which,  in  due  time,  the  Nation  will  reach.  Perhaps  we  are 
slow  in  coming  to  it,  and  it  may  be  that  we  are  even  now  re 
ceiving  our  severe  chastisement  for  not  more  readily  accepting 
the  teachings  of  Providence.  But  it  was  the  tenth  plague  which 
softened  the  heart  of  Pharaoh  and  caused  him  to  let  the  op-, 
pressed  go  free.  That  plague  was  the  sacrifice  of  the  first-born 
in  each  household.  With  the  sanguinary  battle-fields  of  Vir-. 
ginia  whose  records  of  death  we  are  just  reading,  I  ask  you  in 
the  language  of  another,  "How  far  off  are  we  from  that  day 
when  our  households  will  have  paid  that  penalty  to  offended 
Heaven  ?  " 


40  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


CAN  THE  COUNTRY  SUSTAIN  THE  EXPENSE  OF 
THE  WAR  AND  PAY  THE  DEBT  WHICH  IT 
WILL  INVOLVE? 


[Speech  delivered  by  Mr.  Elaine  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States,  April  21,  1864.] 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  The  question  of  most  engrossing  interest 
to  the  loyal  people  of  the  United  States,  to-day,  is  whether  we 
are  able  to  furnish  the  means  of  carrying  on  the  war,  and  to 
sustain  the  load  of  debt  which  the  close  of  hostilities  will  leave 
upon  us.  I  propose  to  show  by  some  simple  facts  and  figures 
that  we  are  abundantly  equal  to  the  great  trial,  and  that  in 
bearing  it  we  are  assuming  far  less  responsibility,-  in  proportion 
to  wealth,  population,  and  prospective  development,  than  has 
been  successfully  assumed  in  the  past  by  another  great  nation, 
and  even  by  ourselves  at  the  organization  of  the  Government. 

In  estimating  the  debt  with  which  we  are  to  be  encumbered, 
it  is  not  wise,  in  my  judgment,  to  adopt  a  too  sanguine  anti 
cipation  of  the  speedy  close  of  the  war.  Many  gentlemen, 
whose  opinions  the  public  are  accustomed  to  respect,  predict 
the  entire  suppression  of  the  rebellion  within  the  ensuing  sum 
mer.  For  myself  I  cannot  indulge  in  so  pleasing  a  prospect. 
Whatever  false  reckonings  we  may  have  made  in  the  past  in 
regard  to  the  shortness  of  the  war,  I  have  latterly  been  of  those 
who  believe  that  the  leading  conspirators  of  the  South  intend  at 
all  events  to  prolong  the  struggle  until  the  approaching  contest 
for  the  Presidency  is  ended.  They  have  a  hope  —  baseless 
enough,  it  seems  to  us  —  that  in  some  way  they  are  to  be  bene 
fited  by  the  result  of  that  election,  and  hence  they  will  hold  out 
until  it  is  decided,  with  a  view,  indeed,  of  affecting  its  decis 
ion.  Let  us  not  then  deceive  ourselves  with  regard  to  the 


SECRETARY  CHASE'S  DEBT  ESTIMATES.  41 

speedy  reduction  of  the  enormous  expenditures  to  which  we  are 
now  subjected.  It  is  wiser  for  us  to  look  soberly  at  facts  as 
they  are,  and  not  beguile  ourselves  with  rose-colored  views  of 
facts  as  we  wish  they  might  be.  Let  us  make  our  calculations 
in  regard  to  the  national  debt,  therefore,  on  the  assumption  that 
the  war  will  last  until  July,  1865,  instead  of  closing  in  July, 
1864,  as  has  been  so  confidently  assumed  by  many.  Should 
it  come  to  a  termination  earlier,  our  error  will  be  the  happiest 
feature  in  our  entire  calculation. 

Heretofore  the  estimates  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in 
regard  to  the  amount  of  the  national  debt  at  any  given  period 
have  proved  surprisingly  accurate.  The  safest  feature  of  his 
estimates  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  he  has  in  no  instance  under 
stated  the  prospective  amount  of  indebtedness,  as  actually 
ascertained  when  we  reached  the  date  to  which  the  estimate 
was  made.  For  instance,  in  December,  1862,  Mr.  Chase  stated 
that  the  debt,  July  1,  1863,  would  be  81,122,297,403.24. 
When  the  time  arrived,  the  debt  amounted  to  $1,098,793,- 
181.37,  or  some  twenty-four  millions  less  than  the  Secretary 
had  estimated.  With  fuller  data  for  reckoning  than  when  he 
made  the  calculation  just  referred  to,  the  Secretary  now  esti 
mates  that  if  the  war  shall  continue  so  long,  at  its  current  rate 
of  cost,  our  debt  in  July,  1865,  will  reach  the  large  sum  of 
12,231,935,190.37.  To  this  vast  amount  let  us  add  $  150,000,000 
to  be  incurred  by  refunding  to  the  loyal  States  their  war  ex 
penses,  and  $150,000,000  more  to  cover  unforeseen  expenses  in 
closing  up  the  great  contest,  and  you  will  have  a  grand  total  of 
twenty-five  hundred  millions  of  dollars,  the  annual  interest  and 
ultimate  redemption  of  which  must  be  provided  for  by  the 
nation.  Besides  contracting  this  enormous  debt,  we  shall  have 
expended  all  the  current  receipts  of  the  Treasury  in  conducting 
the  war,  amounting  in  the  aggregate,  for  the  four  years,  to  more 
than  five  hundred  millions,  making  thus  a  gross  outlay  of  over 
three  thousand  millions  as  the  cost  of  subduing  the  rebellion  - 
an  expenditure  of  two  millions  per  day  from  the  inception  to 
the  close  of  the  contest. 

Let  us  see  how,  by  the  experience  of  our  own  country  in  a 
former  generation,  as  well  as  by  the  experience  of  another  great 
people,  we  may  hope  to  meet  this  burden  with  confidence  and 


42  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

courage  —  bearing  it  without  oppression  when  it  is  heaviest, 
and  coming  in  good  season  to  its  total  discharge,  or  by  attain 
ment  of  superior  strength  making  it  so  light  as  to  be  practically 
disregarded. 

O 

At  the  organization  of  our  Government  in  1789,  the  entire 
population,  free  and  slave,  was  under  four  millions,  scattered 
along  the  seaboard  from  the  St.  Croix  to  the  St.  Mary's,  not 
fifty  thousand  in  all  living  one  hundred  miles  distant  from  the 
flow  of  the  Atlantic  tide.  Facilities  for  intercommunication 
were  greatly  restricted,  manufactures  and  the  arts  were  in  feeble 
infancy,  agriculture  was  rude  and  not  highly  remunerative, 
because  commerce,  its  handmaid,  was  languishing  and  waiting 
to  be  quickened  to  enterprise  and  vigor.  The  entire  valuation 
of  the  thirteen  States,  according  to  the  weight  of  authority, 
did  not  exceed  six  hundred  millions  of  dollars  —  three  hundred 
millions  less  than  the  valuation  of  Massachusetts  to-day,  and 
not  one-half  so  great  as  that  of  Pennsylvania.  Property  at  that 
time  was  ill  adapted  to  bear  taxation,  profits  were  small,  and  to 
the  political  economist,  measuring  the  condition  and  capacity 
of  the  country,  it  seemed  utterly  unable  to  carry  a  debt  of  any 
considerable  magnitude.  And  yet  our  ancestors  did  not  hesi 
tate  to  assume  the  burden  of  ninety  millions  of  dollars  —  more 
than  one-seventh  of  all  the  property  they  owned.  Mr.  Jefferson, 
who  was  the  most  distrustful  of  all  the  statesmen  of  that 
day  in  regard  to  the  ability  of  the  nation  to  sustain  the  load, 
was  yet  willing  to  say  that  it  could  be  easily  borne  if  our  an 
nual  increase  of  property  could  maintain  an  average  of  five  per 
cent  —  then  the  most  sanguine  estimate  which  any  one  dared  to 
place  on  the  future  growth  of  the  country.  Had  we  realized 
only  the  ratio  of  increase  assumed  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  our  wealth 
in  1860  would  have  been  twenty-seven  hundred  millions  instead 
of  sixteen  thousand  millions.  Upon  Mr.  Jefferson's  assumed 
basis  of  increase,  the  debt  would  never  have  been  oppressive ; 
but  with  the  rate  of  growth  actually  realized,  the  country  paid 
the  interest  on  the  debt  and  accumulated  a  fund  for  its  redemp 
tion  with  such  ease  that  the  people  never  felt  they  were  taxed. 
I  hope  to  show  that  our  debt  at  the  close  of  this  war  will  be 
relatively  lighter  than  the  debt  which  our  Revolutionary  fathers 
thus  assumed,  and  proceeded  so  early  and  so  easily  to  discharge. 


BRITISH  NATIONAL  DEBT.  43 

Look  also  at  the  case  of  Great  Britain.  At  the  close  of  her 
prolonged  struggle  with  Napoleon  in  1815,  the  national  debt  of 
that  kingdom  amounted  to  X 861, 000,000  sterling,  or  forty-three 
hundred  millions  of  dollars ;  and  for  readier  comparison  I  shall 
speak  of  her  debt  in  dollars  rather  than  in  pounds.  Her  entire 
population  at  that  time  was  less  than  twenty  millions,  and  the 
valuation  of  her  property  for  purposes  of  taxation  wras  about 
nine  thousand  five  hundred  millions  of  dollars.  She  owed,  in 
deed,  nearly  half  of  all  she  possessed.  Her  population  was  less 
than  two-thirds  of  what  ours  is  to-day.  Her  entire  property 
was  not  three-fifths  of  what  ours  was  according  to  the  census 
of  1860,  while  her  debt  was  eighteen  hundred  millions  of  dollars 
greater  than  ours  wrill  be  in  July,  1865.  In  contracting  this 
debt  she  was  compelled  to  sell  her  bonds  at  the  most  enormous 
sacrifice.  From  1792  to  1815  her  debt  was  increased  three 
thousand  millions  of  dollars ;  yet  in  exchange  for  this  amount 
of  bonds  she  received  in  money  but  $1,730,000,000,  thus  submit 
ting  to  a  discount  of  11,270,000,000.  In  other  words,  England, 
during  the  twenty-three  years  of  Continental  war,  only  realized 
on  an  average  for  the  wrhole  period,  §100  in  money  in  exchange 
for  $173  of  her  bonds.  This,  be  it  remembered,  was  the  aver 
age  for  the  whole  time.  As  the  contest  waxed  desperate,  her 
sacrifices  became  desperate  in  proportion,  and  the  money  which 
enabled  her  to  fight  the  decisive  campaign  of  Waterloo  was 
obtained  by  selling  her  bonds  to  the  European  bankers  at  less 
than  fifty  cents  on  the  dollar.  Compared  with  this  our  sacri 
fices  on  the  national  securities  have  thus  far  been  light,  not 
averaging,  from  the  inception  of  the  war  to  the  present  day, 
with  all  elements  of  expenditure  fairly  estimated,  more  than 
from  twenty  to  twenty-five  per  cent,  reckoning  on  the  gold 
basis. 

To  meet  their  enormous  debt,  the  British  people  had  nothing 
but  the  commercial  and  industrial  resources  of  the  United 
Kingdom,  whose  whole  area  is  not  double  that  of  the  single 
State  of  Missouri.  They  had  a  population  of  but  twenty  mil 
lions,  as  already  stated,  subject  to  no  increase  from  immigra 
tion,  and  growing  in  half  a  century  no  more  than  we  have 
grown  during  the  last  decade.  Yet  on  this  restricted  area,  the 
enterprise  and  energy  of  the  British  people  have  increased  their 


44  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

property,  until  it  is  valued  at  thirty-three  thousand  millions  of 
dollars  ;  and  in  defiance  of  the  large  expenditure  resulting  from 
several  costly  wars  since  1815,  they  have  actually  reduced  their 
debt  some  three  hundred  millions  of  dollars.  Their  steady 
progress  in  wealth  under  their  large  debt  is  comprehended  in 
the  statement  that  the  average  property  per  capita  in  1815  was 
less  than  five  hundred  dollars,  and  in  1861  was  about  eleven 
hundred  dollars.  In  1815  some  twenty-five  per  centum  of  all 
the  earnings  and  income  of  the  people  was  absorbed  in  taxation, 
and  in  1861  less  than  ten  per  centum  was  taken  for  the  same 
object.  In  1815  the  proportion  of  taxes  per  head  for  the  whole 
people  exceeded  seventeen  dollars,  and  in  1861  it  had  fallen 
below  ten  dollars. 

These  brief  details  of  British  experience  show  how  a  great 
debt,  without  being  absolutely  reduced  to  any  considerable  ex 
tent,  becomes  relatively  lighter  by  the  increased  capacity  to 
bear  it.  The  wealth  per  capita  of  the  entire  population  in  a 
period  of  forty-six  years  has  more  than  doubled  ;  the  aggregate 
property  of  the  realm  has  more  than  trebled  ;  and  all  this  on  a 
fixed  area  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  square  miles, 
and  with  a  population  increasing  at  the  slow  rate  of  only  one 
per  cent  per  annum.  If  such  results  can  be  wrought  out  by  a 
kindred  people,  against  such  obstacles  and  hinderances,-  what 
may  we  not  hope  to  accomplish  under  the  auspicious  circum 
stances  of  our  own  Nation  ! 

In  the  light  of  the  national  experiences  we  have  been  glancing 
at,  we  may  clearly  read  our  own  great  future.  It  is  not,  indeed, 
a  matter  of  surmise  or  speculative  inquiry,  but  of  well-founded 
and  confident  calculation  —  a  calculation  whose  only  error  will 
be  in  falling  short  of  results  actually  to  be  realized.  The  war 
closing  in  July,  1865,  will  leave  us  in  this  condition:  a  nation 
numbering  some  thirty-three  millions  of  people,  owning  over 
sixteen  thousand  millions  of  property,  and  carrying  a  debt 
of  twenty-five  hundred  millions  of  dollars.  The  proportion 
between  debt  and  property  will  be  just  about  the  same  that 
it  was  when  the  Union  was  formed,  while  the  ratio  of  our 
advance  and  the  largely  enhanced  productiveness  of  agricul 
tural,  manufacturing  and  commercial  pursuits  gives  the  present 
generation  an  advantage  that  renders  the  debt  far  less  bur- 


THE  REVOLUTIONARY  DEBT.  45 

densome  at  the  very  outset.  If  the  Revolutionary  debt  became 
in  a  very  brief  period  so  light  as  to  be  unnoticed,  why  may  we 
not,  with  a  vastly  accelerated  ratio  of  progress,  assume  a  similar 
auspicious  result  with  regard  to  the  debt  we  are  now  contract 
ing?  Were  our  future  advance  in  wealth  and  population  to  be 
no  more  rapid  than  Great  Britain's  has  been  since  1815,  we 
should  at  the  close  of  the  present  century  have  a  population 
of  forty-five  million  souls,  and  a  property  amounting  to  fifty 
thousand  millions  of  dollars.  Even  upon  this  ratio  of  progress 
our  entire  debt  would  cease  to  be  felt  as  a  burden.  But  upon 
the  increase  of  population  and  development  of  wealth  to  be 
so  confidently  anticipated,  the  debt  would  be  so  small,  in  com 
parison  with  the  total  resources  of  the  nation,  as  to  become 
absolutely  inconsiderable. 

All  that  I  have  said  has  been  based  on  the  supposition  of  the 
debt  remaining  at  a  fixed  sum,  the  country  simply  paying  the 
interest.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  it  is  perfectly  obvious 
that  in  the  progress  and  prosperity  of  the  future,  one  of  our 
first  acts  will  be  to  provide  for  the  gradual  but  absolute 
redemption  of  the  principal.  That  this  will  be  consummated 
without  oppressively  adding  to  the  annual  burden  of  taxes 
may  be  inferred  with  certainty  from  a  slight  examination  of  our 
capacity  to  make  increased  payments  proportioned  to  our  in 
creased  amount  of  consolidated  wealth.  The  time  of  redemp 
tion  will  depend  wholly  on  the  will  of  the  tax-payers,  but  it  is 
evident  that  the  condition  of  the  country  may  justify  its  being 
done  as  rapidly  as  Mr.  Hamilton  proposed  to  redeem  the  debt 
which  he  funded  in  1790.  The  period  assigned  by  him  was 
thirty-five  years,  and  so  well  based  were  his  calculations,  that 
the  entire  debt,  augmented  largely  arid  unexpectedly  as  it  was 
by  the  war  of  1812,  was  paid  in  forty-four  years  from  the  date 
of  funding;  and  in  1834  the  United  States  found  itself  owing 
but  thirty-seven  thousand  dollars. 

To  those  who  may  be  disposed  to  doubt  the  future  progress 
of  our  country  according  to  the  ratio  assumed,  a  few  familiar 
considerations  in  respect  to  our  resources  may  be  recalled  with 
advantage.  We  occupy  a  territory  at  least  three  million  square 
miles  in  extent,  within  a  fraction  as  large  as  the  whole  of 


46  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

Europe.  Our  habitable  and  cultivable  area  is,  indeed,  larger 
than  that  of  all  Europe,  to  say  nothing  of  the  superior  fertility 
and  general  productiveness  of  our  soil.  So  vast  is  our  extent, 
that,  though  we  may  glibly  repeat  its  numerical  measure,  we 
find  it  most  difficult  to  form  any  just  conception  of  it.  The 
State  of  Texas  alone  is  equal  in  area  to  the  Empire  of  France 
and  the  Kingdom  of  Portugal  united ;  and  yet  these  two  mon 
archies  support  a  population  of  forty  millions,  while  Texas  has 
but  six  hundred  thousand  inhabitants.  Or,  if  we  wish  for  a 
comparative  measure  nearer  home,  let  me  state  that  the  area  of 
Texas  is  greater  than  that  of  the  six  New  England  States, 
together  with  New  York  and  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania  and 
Ohio  and  Indiana  combined.  California,  the  second  State  in 
size,  is  equal  in  extent  to  the  Kingdom  of  Spain  and  the  King 
dom  of  Belgium  together.  The  land  that  is  still  in  the  hands 
of  Government,  not  sold  or  even  pre-empted,  amounts  to  a 
thousand  millions  of  acres  —  an  extent  of  territory  thirteen 
times  as  large  as  Great  Britain,  and  equal  in  area  to  all  the 
kingdoms  of  Europe,  Russia  and  Turkey  alone  excepted.  Mere 
territorial  extent  does  not  of  course  imply  future  greatness, 
though  it  is  one  requisite  to  it.  In  our  case  it  is  so  vast  an 
element  that  we  may  be  pardoned  for  dwelling  on  it  with 
emphasis  and  iteration. 

Combined  with  this  great  expanse  of  territory  we  have  facil 
ities  for  the  acquisition  and  consolidation  of  wealth  —  varied, 
magnificent,  and  immeasurable.  Our  agricultural  resources, 
bounteous  beyond  estimate,  are,  by  the  application  of  mechani 
cal  skill  and  labor-saving  machinery,  receiving  a  development 
each  decade,  which  a  century  in  the  past  would  have  failed 
to  secure,  and  which  a  century  in  the  future  will  place  beyond 
all  present  power  of  computation  —  giving  us  so  far  the  lead 
in  the  production  of  those  staple  articles  essential  to  life  and 
civilization  that  we  become  the  arbiter  of  the  world's  destiny 
without  aiming  at  the  world's  empire.  The  single  State  of 
Illinois,  cultivated  to  its  capacity,  can  produce  as  large  a  crop 
of  cereals  as  has  ever  been  grown  within  the  limits  of  the 
United  States ;  while  Texas,  if  peopled  but  half  as  densely  as 
Maryland  even,  could  give  an  annual  return  of  cotton  larger 
than  the  largest  that  has  ever  been  grown  in  all  the  Southern 


ELEMENTS  OF  NATIONAL  WEALTH.  47 

States  combined.  Our  facilities  for  commerce  and  exchange, 
both  domestic  and  foreign — who  shall  measure  them?  Our 
oceans,  our  vast  inland  seas,  our  marvelous  flow  of  navigable 
streams,  our  canals,  our  network  of  railroads  more  than  thirty 
thousand  miles  in  extent,  —  these  give  us  avenues  of  trade 
and  channels  of  communication  both  natural  and  artificial, 
such  as  no  other  nation  has  ever  enjoyed,  and  which  tend  to 
the  production  of  wealth  with  a  rapidity  not  to  be  measured 
by  any  standard  of  the  past.  The  enormous  field  for  manu 
facturing  industry  in  all  its  complex  and  endless  variety  —  with 
our  raw  material,  our  wonderful  motive-power  both  by  water 
and  steam,  our  healthful  climate,  our  cheap  carriage,  our  home 
consumption,  our  foreign  demand  —  foreshadows  a  traffic  whose 
magnitude  and  whose  profit  cannot  now  be  estimated !  Our 
mines  of  gold  and  silver  and  iron  and  copper  and  lead  and 
coal,  with  their  untold  and  unimaginable  wealth,  spread  over 
millions  of  acres  of  territory,  in  the  valley,  on  the  mountain 
side,  along  rivers,  yielding  already  a  rich  harvest,  are  destined 
yet  to  increase  a  thousand-fold,  until  their  every-day  treasures, 

"  familiar  grown, 
Shall  realize  Orient's  fabled  wealth." 

These  are  the  great  elements  of  material  progress ;  and  they 
comprehend  the  entire  circle  of  human  enterprise  —  Agriculture, 
Commerce,  Manufactures,  Mining.  They  assure  to  us  an  increase 
in  property  and  population  that  will  surpass  the  most  sanguine 
deductions  of  our  census  tables,  framed  as  those  tables  are  upon 
the  ratios  and  relations  of  our  progress  in  the  past.  They  give 
into  our  hands,  under  the  blessing  of  Almighty  God,  the  power 
to  command  our  fate  as  a  nation.  They  hold  out  to  us  the 
grandest  future  reserved  for  any  people ;  and  with  this  promise 
they  teach  us  the  lesson  of  patience,  and  render  confidence  and 
fortitude  a  duty.  With  such  amplitude  and  affluence  of  re 
sources,  and  with  such  a  vast  stake  at  issue,  we  should  be  un 
worthy  of  our  lineage  and  our  inheritance  if  we  for  one  moment 
distrusted  our  ability  to  maintain  ourselves  a  united  people, 
with  "  one  Country,  one  Constitution,  one  Destiny." 


48  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTION    OF   1864.  — LINCOLN 
AGAINST    McCLELLAN. 


[Speech  of  Mr.  Elaine  at  a  Republican  meeting  in  Augusta,  Sept.  5,  1864.  ] 

FELLOW-CITIZENS,  —  I  think  we  shall  all  agree  that  the  con 
test  for  the  Presidency  in  which  the  American  people  are  now 
engaged  is  marked  by  some  extraordinary  features. 

The  Republicans  are  advocating  the  re-election  of  Mr.  Lin 
coln,  who,  with  varying  success,  but  with  ceaseless  devotion, 
has  striven  to  subdue  the  enemies  of  the  Union  by  military 
force,  to  which  those  enemies  were,  themselves,  the  first  to 
appeal.  The  most  malignant  opponents  of  the  President  do  not 
question  his  integrity,  his  earnestness,  his  zeal  in  the  cause  of 
the  Union.  They  simply  challenge  the  wisdom  of  his  course. 

The  Democrats  have  nominated  an  unsuccessful  General  of 
the  Union  Army,  and  their  National  Convention  has  placed  him 
on  a  platform  declaring  the  war  to  be  a  failure  and  demanding 
"a  cessation  of  hostilities,  with  a  view  to  an  ultimate  convention 
of  all  the  States,  or  other  peaceable  means,  to  the  end  that,  at 
the  earliest  practicable  moment,  peace  may  be  restored  on  the 
basis  of  the  Federal  Union  of  all  the  States." 

General  McClellan  is,  I  think,  the  only  military  man  who 
ever  ran  for  President  of  the  United  States  on  the  explicit  and 
declared  basis  of  a  capitulation.  He  runs  as  a  military  hero, 
and  yet  proposes  to  ground  arms,  withdraw  our  troops,  acknowl 
edge  the  war  to  be  a  failure,  and  see  upon  what  terms  of  apolo 
getic  submission  on  the  part  of  loyal  men  and  Federal  soldiers 
the  rebels  will  agree  to  return  to  the  Union  as  our  masters. 

I  think  the  members  of  the  Democratic  National  Convention 
that  nominated  General  McClellan  and  placed  him  on  this  peace 
platform  deserve  to  be  forever  marked  among  their  countrymen 


LINCOLN  AND  McCLELLAN.  49 

for  lack  of  patriotism,  for  abandonment  of  the  primal  instinct  of 
self-respect,  for  subordination  of  every  manly  impulse. 

If,  on  this  declared  line  of  policy,  the  people  of  the  United 
States  elect  General  McClellan,  we  should  apologize  for  the 
victories  at  Gettysburg  and  Yicksburg,  forget  the  glories  of  the 
Chattanooga  campaign,  express  regret  for  the  valued  achieve 
ments  of  our  Navy,  recall  Grant  from  the  splendid  campaign 
he  is  waging  against  Lee  in  Virginia,  and  rebuke  Sherman  for 
having  driven  back  the  enemy  from  Atlanta  and  conquered 
that  stronghold  by  the  decisive  victory  whose  details  we  are 
just  now  reading  in  the  daily  journals. 

We  have  sacrificed  thousands  of  valuable  lives,  have  spent 
money  by  the  thousands  of  millions,  are  pressing  the  rebellion  to 
its  final  retreat,  are  exhausting  its  last  resources ;  and  just  when 
these  Southern  conspirators  against  the  Union  are  in  despair, 
the  Democratic  National  Convention  meets  and,  in  the  name  of 
their  great  and  once  honored  party,  demands  that  the  war  shall 
cease,  that  our  troops  shall  be  withdrawn,  and  that  the  proud 
people  of  this  Nation  shall  stand  hat  in  hand  and  wait  in  humili 
ation  and  disgrace  until  the  rebels  prescribe  the  terms  on  which 
they  will  agree  to  govern  us  hereafter. 

I  certainly  do  not  envy  the  feelings  of  General  McClellan 
when  he  surveys  the  position  into  which  personal  chagrin  and 
anger  and  disappointment  have  placed  him.  I  do  not  desire  to 
speak  with  harshness  or  personal  disrespect  concerning  him.. 
He  gained  one  victory  for  the  Union  at  Antietam,  and  let  him 
have  ample  credit  for  that.  His  fault  was  that  he  could  not 
and  would  not  be  loyal  to  those  who,  charged  with  the  admin 
istration  of  the  Federal  Government,  were  his  official  superiors. 
He  has  been,  from  the  beginning  of  his  military  career,  disre 
spectful  to  Mr.  Lincoln  and  apparently  incapable  of  appreciat 
ing  the  great  character,  the  simplicity,  the  earnestness,  the 
determination,  of  that  wonderful  man.  Towards  Mr.  Stanton, 
who  speaks  officially  for  the  President,  and  who  in  ability  as  a 
war  minister  and  in  devotion  to  official  duty  has  rarely  been 
equaled  in  any  country,  General  McClellan  has  been  steadily, 
persistently  and  to  the  last  degree  insolent. 

After  his  great  army  on  the  Peninsula  (the  most  superb  and 
formidable  that  was  ever  organized  on  this  continent)  had  been 


50  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

defeated  by  Lee  and  was  lying  at  Harrison's  Landing,  General 
McClellan  telegraphed  to  the  Secretary  of  War:  "  If  I save  this 
Army  now,  I  tell  you  plainly  that  I  owe  no  thanks  to  you  or  to  any 
persons  in  Washington.  You  have  done  your  best  to  sacrifice  this 
Army."  It  is  an  old  maxim,  fellow-citizens,  that  he  only  is  fit 
to  command  who  has  proven  himself  ready  to  obey ;  and  cer 
tainly,  by  that  test,  General  McClellan  has  no  claim  to  be 
called  to  the  rulership  of  the  Republic,  to  the  great  task  of 
governing  the  people  of  United  States.  Suppose  a  Marshal 
of  Napoleon  had  sent  such  a  dispatch  to  the  great  Emperor  — 
suppose  one  of  the  Generals  of  Frederick  the  Great  had  ven 
tured  to  impute  such  conduct  to  that  mighty  commander  —  how 
long  do  you  believe  the  author  of  such  insubordination  would 
have  been  allowed  even  to  live  ?  Can  any  one  doubt  that  Mr. 
Lincoln  would  have  been  justified  in  instantly  cashiering  Gen 
eral  McClellan,  as  the  law  authorized  him  to  do,  for  this  unpar 
alleled  insubordination? 

That  patient  man,  who  is  slow  to  anger  and  incapable  of 
personal  resentment,  forgave  General  McClellan  and  held  back 
the  fiery  wrath  of  Stanton,  rather  than  run  the  risk  of  sowing 
factions  in  the  army  by  meting  out  to  McClellan  his  just  and 
merited  punishment.  It  requires  an  extraordinary  degree  of 
moral  strength  and  self-control  in  a  President  of  the  United 
States  to  submit  to  such  personal  indignity  as  was  attempted  to 
be  put  upon  Mr.  Lincoln  by  General  McClellan,  without  experi 
encing  a  certain  sense  of  self-humiliation  and  without  incurring 
a  certain  loss  of  self-respect  on  the  part  of  his  best  friends.  But 
incidents  of  this  character  prove  how  lofty  is  the  nature  of  Mr. 
Lincoln  and  how  he  keeps  himself  free  from  the  ordinary  pas 
sions  by  which  even  great  men  are  swayed  beyond  the  confines 
of  discretion.  So  far  from  losing  dignity  by  not  being  forward 
to  assert  it  he  has  constantly  been  more  and  more  endowed  with 
it.  He  has  gained  control  over  others  by  constantly  maintain 
ing  it  over  himself  and  has  established  the  highest  standard  of 
personal  and  official  bearing  by  refraining  from  the  pettiness  of 
resentment  and  being  too  magnanimous  to  indulge  in  revenge. 

Let  us  contemplate  for  a  moment  the  probable  consequences 
of  the  programme  to  which  the  Northern  Democrats  now  in 
vite  us.  Does  any  man  doubt  that,  if  the  policy,  of  which 


LINCOLN  AND  McCLELLAN.  51 

General  McClellan  is  ready  to  stand  as  the  representative,  should 
triumph,  the  rebels  would  be  able  to  establish  their  Confederacy? 
How,  after  grounding  arms,  humiliating  the  Union,  ceasing  to 
struggle,  are  you  going  to  raise  the  war  spirit  again,  in  the  event 
of  the  rebels  refusing  to  come  into  the  Union  on  any  terms  ? 
This  resolution  of  the  Democratic  Convention,  it  is  true,  de 
clares  that  the  war  is  to  cease  on  "  the  basis  of  the  Federal 
Union."  Suppose  the  rebels  say,  that  they  prefer  to  have  their 
Confederacy :  how  are  you  going  to  be  able  to  resist  them  ? 
You  would  practically  have  disbanded  your  military  strength, 
while  the  courage  and  confidence  of  the  enemy's  forces  would 
have  been  trebled  by  the  prestige  gained  from  the  retreat  and 
practical  surrender  of  the  Union  Army. 

If  the  rebels  should  insist  upon  their  own  separate  Con 
federacy,  does  any  man  believe  that  the  remaining  States  could 
continue  to  live  in  harmony  and  in  union  ?  Would  not  strifes 
and  contentions,  without  number,  at  once  spring  up?  The 
Border  States  would  certainly  be  convulsed  with  a  fierce  contest 
as  to  which  section  they  would  adhere  to ;  and,  with  the  strong 
incentive  of  maintaining  the  institution  of  slavery,  who  doubts 
which  way  they  would  go?  Would  not  the  Pacific  slope,  in 
order  to  escape  the  clangers  and  embroilments  which  it  could 
neither  control  nor  avoid,  naturally  seek  for  independence  — 
protected,  as  that  section  would  be,  on  one  side  by  a  great  chain 
of  mountains  and  on  the  other  by  a  broad  ocean  ?  The  North- 
West,  if  it  did  not  follow  the  example  of  secession,  would 
demand  such  a  reconstruction  of  the  Government  of  the 
remaining  States  as  would  injuriously  affect  every  interest  -of 
the  East  and  North-East.  In  short,  disunion  upon  the  line 
of  the  revolted  States  would  involve  the  speedy  disintegra 
tion  of  the  Federal  Government.  We  should  find  ourselves 
launched  on  a  sea  of  troubles,  with  no  pilot  capable  of  holding 
the  helm  and  no  chart  to  guide  us  on  our  perilous  voyage. 

But  let  us  suppose  that  the  rebels  would  agree,  in  response 
to  this  invitation  of  the  Democratic  National  Convention,  ap 
proved  by  popular  vote,  to  return  to  their  rightful  allegiance. 
Would  they  not  practically  be  in  a  position  to  demand  and  en 
force  their  own  terms  ?  Would  they  not  ask,  and  receive,  such 
guaranties  of  slavery  as  would  fasten  that  institution,  for  all 


52  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

time,  upon  the  United  States,  giving  it  free  access  to  all  the 
Territories  and  guarding  it  as  a  National  institution  at  every 
point  ?  If  the  North  should  present  itself  saddled  and  bridled, 
for  the  South  booted  and  spurred,  to  mount,  do  you  think  they 
would  ride  mercifully?  Would  they  not  despise  the  craven 
spirit,  the  cringing  cowardice,  which  impelled  such  action  on 
the  part  of  the  loyal  people  ?  and  would  they  not  feel  sure  that 
having  gone  so  far  in  the  path  of  humiliation  as  the  election  of 
McClellan  would  imply,  they  could  lay  no  burden  upon  our 
back  which  we  would  not  bear,  and  exact  no  condition,  however 
degrading,  with  which  we  would  not  comply  ? 

It  is  difficult,  I  know,  fellow-citizens,  to  speak  of  this  issue 
with  cool  head,  with  measured  words,  in  the  language  of  argu 
ment.  We  are  stirred  too  much  with  hot  indignation  to  con 
sider  the  rules  of  logic,  to  wait  for  the  slow  recital  of  facts,  to 
ask  you  even  to  listen  to  any  thing  but  angry  denunciation  of 
the  Democratic  position.  Every  man  knows  by  instinct,  with 
out  going  through  the  process  of  demonstration,  that  the  prose 
cution  of  the  war  is  the  only  line  of  safety  for  the  Union,  and 
that,  as  Wellington  said  in  his  famous  Peninsular  campaign, 
"  the  prosecution  of  war  is,  after  all,  the  process  of  exhaustion 
of  the  enemy."  The  Government  of  the  Union  is  still  strong, 
full  of  resources,  of  money,  of  men,  of  material,  rich  now  in  ex 
perience,  with  veterans  in  the  ranks  to  the  number  of  a  million, 
with  generals  who  have  become  great  in  the  science  of  war  from 
experience  in  the  field.  Our  manufactures  are  prosperous,  the 
oceans  of  the  world  are  open  to  our  commerce,  our  people  have 
never  even  considered  that  the  fate  of  the  Government  could 
be  critical,  they  have  never  even  approached  the  borders  of 
despair. 

How  is  it  with  the  rebels?  We  know  their  situation  almost 
as  well  as  though  we  had  daily  bulletins  from  the  centre  of 
their  government  and  from  the  headquarters  of  their  armies. 
They  are  already  greatly  reduced ;  they  daily  grow  weaker ; 
their  ports  are  blockaded;  they  can  get  no  help  from  other 
nations ;  they  cannot  clothe  their  troops ;  they  cannot  supply 
shoes  to  the  footsore  soldiers  who  have  marched  and  fought  so 
well.  We  have  cut  the  Confederacy  in  two,  and  practically 
detached  the  resources  of  Arkansas,  Louisiana  and  Texas  from 


LINCOLN  AND  McCLELLAN.  53 

the  Richmond  Government.  Grant  is  in  the  heart  of  Virginia 
with  a  conquering  host ;  while  Sherman,  with  a  triumphant 
army,  is  resting  quietly  in  the  centre  of  the  cotton  States,  study 
ing  which  way  he  may  move  with  deadliest  effects  upon  the 
resources  of  the  Confederacy.  Every  thing  portends  success  to 
our  arms,  and  that  speedily.  Our  only  danger  is  in  the  rear, 
from  the  Democratic  party,  who  are  rushing  to  the  defense  of 
the  Confederacy  as  though  they  desired,  above  all  things,  to 
interpose  their  strong  arm  to  save  it  from  being  finally  crushed 
and  destroyed  under  the  iron  hoof  of  war. 

I  know  it  is  a  common  saying  at  each  quadrennial  election 
that  it  is  the  most  important  one  the  people  have  ever  been 
called  upon  to  decide  ;  but  if  this  has  been  lightly  said  before, 
I  think  it  may  now  be  declared  with  absolute  truth.  We  have 
all  felt,  and  many  of  us  have  publicly  said,  that  the  rebels 
would  strain  the  last  nerve  to  sustain  the  Confederacy  through 
the  Presidental  campaign,  with  the  blind  hope,  which  has  now 
become  visible  and  palpable  by  the  action  of  the  Democratic 
party,  that  something  would  happen  to  their  advantage.  They 
wait  now,  not  upon  the  fortunes  of  war,  but  upon  the  decision 
at  the  ballot-boxes  in  the  loyal  States  of  the  Union.  They 
know  that  the  election  of  McClellan  will  save  them  from  the 
just  consequences  of  their  rebellion  against  the  Union,  and 
will  practically  make  them  arbiters  of  their  own  destiny,  mas 
ters  of  the  National  situation.  We  know,  and  they  know, 
that  the  re-election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  means  a  collapse  of  the 
rebel  armies,  the  dispersion  of  their  troops,  the  restoration  of 
the  National  flag  over  all  their  territory,  and  the  re-establish 
ment  of  the  Union,  purified  by  war,  relieved  from  the  blot  of 
slavery,  and  strengthened  for  all  the  future  by  the  awful  ex 
perience  of  these  years  of  blood.  Whatever  doubt  may  attend 
the  election  in  other  States,  I  know  that  we  can  trust  implicitly 
to  the  loyalty  and  the  courage  of  Maine.  Governor  Seymour 
may  try  to  confuse  the  issue  in  New  York,  the  Knights  of  the 
Golden  Circle  will  relax  no  effort  in  their  determination  to 
carry  Indiana  against  the  National  Administration ;  but  I  be 
lieve  their  efforts  will  be  in  vain,  for,  after  all,  it  is  incon 
ceivable  that  a  majority  of  the  citizens  of  these  loyal  States  can 
be  blinded  to  National  pride,  to  a  sense  of  their  own  interest, 


54  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

to  the  degrading  humiliation  to  which  the  Democratic  National 
Convention  has  invited  the  country. 

I  do  not  deny,  my  fellow-citizens,  that  I  covet  the  honor  of  a 
re-election  to  Congress.  It  is  a  matter  of  especial  pride  and 
ambition  to  be  a  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives  at  this 
great  epoch  in  the  history  of  our  country.  But  I  should  hang 
my  head  in  shame  and  wish  to  be  released  from  the  mortifica 
tion  of  sitting  in  Congress,  if  a  majority  of  the  members  to  be 
elected  should  approve  the  surrender  of  the  proud  position  of 
the  Nation  which  would  be  involved  in  the  election  of  General 
McClellan.  If  there  was  a  possibility  of  that  National  humili 
ation,  I  should  ask  to  be  excused  even  from  being  a  witness, 
and  should  return  to  you,  if  re-elected,  the  credentials  with 
which  you  would  entrust  me.  But  I  have  no  fear  of  such  a 
result.  The  National  spirit  is  daily  rising ;  the  National  pride 
is  touched ;  the  sense  of  National  honor  is  awakened.  The 
House  of  Representatives  for  which  I  am  a  candidate  will,  I  am 
sure,  contain  a  majority,  a  large  majority,  of  men  loyal  to  the 
Union,  proud  of  the  achievements  of  our  armies,  zealous  in 
support  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  Administration. 

On  Monday  next  we  have  our  duty  to  discharge  in  Maine, 
and  the  distinguished  gentleman  from  the  Keystone  State 
[Judge  William  D.  Kelley],  who  has  already  spoken  from  this 
platform,  will  carry  back  to  his  loyal  constituency  the  news  of 
a  great  triumph,  to  which  he  has  in  no  small  degree  contributed 
by  his  arguments  and  his  eloquence.  Maine  speaks  among  the 
first  States,  and  her  voice  has  an  importance  far  beyond  her 
numerical  strength.  Let  each  Republican  voter  feel,  therefore, 
that  the  duty  devolved  upon  him  is  something  more  than 
belongs  to  him  as  a  citizen  of  Maine.  Let  him  remember  that 
he  is  to  speak  for  the  loyalty  of  the  North,  and  that  his  voice 
can  influence  other  men,  to  the  utmost  bounds  of  the  Republic. 


THE  FINANCIAL  PROBLEM.  55 


FUTILITY   OF  ATTEMPTING   TO   EQUALIZE   GOLD, 
SILVER,  AND   PAPER   MONEY  BY   LEGISLATION. 


[Remarks  of  Mr.  Elaine  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  Dec.  7,  1864.] 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  I  move  to  reconsider  the  vote  whereby  the 
House  yesterday  referred  to  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means 
a  bill  introduced  by  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr. 
Thaddeus  Stevens],  "to  prevent  gold  and  silver  coin  and 
bullion  from  being  paid  or  exchanged  for  a  greater  value  than 
their  real  current  value,  and  for  preventing  any  note  or  bill 
issued  by  the  United  States,  and  made  lawful  money  and  a  legal 
tender,  from  being  received  for  a  smaller  sum  than  is  therein 
specified."  I  believe,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  this  bill  has  been  pro 
ductive  of  great  mischief  in  the  brief  twenty-four  hours  that 
it  has  been  allowed  to  float  before  the  public  mind  as  a  meas 
ure  seriously  entertained  by  this  House.  I  believe  that  still 
more  mischief  will  ensue  every  day  and  every  hour  the  House 
stands  committed  to  such  legislation,  even  by  the  motion  of 
courtesy  which  refers  the  bill  to  a  committee.  The  provisions 
of  the  bill  are  very  extraordinary,  and  but  for  the  respect  I  feel 
for  the  distinguished  gentleman  who  introduced  it,  I  should  say 
they  were  absurd  and  monstrous.  Let  me  read  two  or  three  of 
these  provisions :  — 

"  2.  That  a  dollar  note  issued  by  the  Government,  declared  lawful  money 
and  legal  tender,  is  declared  of  equal  value  for  all  purposes  as  gold  and  silver 
coin  of  like  denomination. 

"  3.  That  a  contract  made  payable  in  coin  may  be  payable  in  legal-tender 
United  States  notes,  and  that  no  difference  in  sale  or  value  shall  be  allowed 
between  them. 

"  5.  That  no  person  shall  by  any  device,  shift  or  contrivance  receive  or 
pay,  or  contract  to  receive  or  pay,  any  Treasury  or  other  note  issued  by  the 
United  States  for  circulation  as  money,  and  declared  legal  tender,  for  less 
than  their  lawfully  expressed  value  ;  and  any  offender,  upon  conviction,  shall 
suffer  imprisonment  not  exceeding  six  months,  and  a  fine  equal  to  the  full 
amount  of  the  sum  specified  in  said  note. 


56  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

"  6.  That  if  any  person  shall,  in  the  purchase  or  sale  of  gold  or  silver  coin 
or  bullion,  agree  to  receive  in  payment  notes  of  corporations  or  individuals 
at  less  than  par  value,  he  shall  be  deemed  to  have  offended  against  the 
provisions  of  this  act,  and  shall  be  punished  accordingly." 

I  forbear  to  recite  the  remainder  of  the  bill.  I  have  read 
enough  to  show,  that  if  it  should  become  a  law,  the  entire  pop 
ulation  on  the  Pacific  coast  would  be  liable  to  indictment  and 
conviction  for  a  criminal  offense  simply  because  they  will  per 
sist  in  believing  that  in  the  present  condition  of  our  currency  a 
gold  dollar  is  worth  more  than  a  paper  dollar.  Not  limiting 
the  scope  of  the  bill  to  the  protection  of  Government  currency, 
the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  still  further  proposes  to 
punish,  as  for  a  misdemeanor,  any  one  who  shall  agree  to  sell 
gold  and  receive  in  payment  "  notes  of  corporations  or  individ 
uals  at  less  than  par  value." 

The  whole  bill,  sir,  aims  at  what  is  simply  impossible.  You 
cannot  by  a  Congressional  enactment  make  a  coin  dollar  worth 
less  than  it  is,  or  a  paper  dollar  worth  more  than  it  is.  I 
think  we  had  experience  enough  in  that  direction  with  the 
famous  gold  bill  at  the  last  session.  We  passed  that  measure 
after  a  very  severe  pressure,  and  with  great  promises  as  to  the 
wonders  it  would  work  in  Wall  Street.  It  continued  on  the 
statute-book  for  some  twelve  days  —  gold  advancing  at  a  rapid 
rate  every  day  until  its  repeal  was  effected.  The  bill  now 
under  consideration  has  already  had  a  most  pernicious  effect ; 
and  should  it  become  a  law,  no  man  can  measure  the  degree  of 
its  hurtful  influence.  It  is  for  these  reasons  that  I  desire  to 
have  its  reference  reconsidered. 

In  regard  to  the  specific  line  of  argument  used  by  the  chair 
man  of  Ways  and  Means  to  justify  this  extraordinary  measure, 
let  me  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  I  have  read  English  history  on 
this  subject  with  different  conclusions  from  those  so  confidently 
expressed  by  him.  My  impression  is  that  the  well-weighed 
judgment,  the  deliberate  conclusion  of  the  British  people  was 
and  is,  that  such  prohibitory  statutes  as  the  gentleman  has 
cited  have  no  favorable  effect  upon  the  price  of  gold.  That 
they  did  not  have  a  prejudicial  and  disastrous  effect  in  England, 
is  due  to  the  existence  of  other  powerful  causes  whose  opera- 


CREATING  VALUES  BY  LEGISLATION.  57 

tion  and  effect  were  most  beneficent.  Those  causes  for  the  de 
cline  and  continued  low  price  of  gold  are  found,  sir,  in  the  fact 
that  the  British  Parliament  raised  by  taxation  half,  and  some 
times  more  than  half,  of  the  total  amount  annually  expended  in 
her  fierce  struggle  with  Napoleon,  and  British  arms  were  at  the 
same  time  crowned  with  a  series  of  brilliant  and  decisive  victo 
ries.  Indeed,  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  himself,  some 
what  unconsciously  perhaps,  admits  the  whole  force  of  my 
position  on  this  point ;  for  he  states  that  eight  years  before  the 
English  people  resumed  specie  payment  (in  1823),  the  premium 
on  gold  had  fallen  to  a  mere  nominal  rate.  I  admit  it,  sir ;  and 
I  ask  the  honorable  gentleman,  what  brought  it  there  ?  Uncon 
sciously,  as  I  have  said,  the  gentleman  named  the  precise  date 
of  the  battle  of  Waterloo,  and  the  British  victory  on  that  mem 
orable  field  was  the  cause  of  gold  ruling  low  in  London  in  1815. 
By  the  battle  of  Waterloo  England's  supremacy  was  estab 
lished  :  she  had  broken  and  beaten  all  coalitions  against  her, 
and  was  confessedly  mistress  on  land  and  sea.  It  was  her 
strong  military  and  naval  position  and  her  resolute  system  of 
finance  that  raised  the  value  of  her  bonds  and  brought  down 
the  price  of  gold.  It  was  not  her  prohibitory  legislation  at 
all :  no  intelligent  minister  of  finance,  no  English  historian 
worthy  of  credit,  has  ever  stated  that  it  was. 

Let  us,  sir,  imitate  England  in  raising  our  credit  by  wise 
legislation  here,  and  by  continued  victories  in  the  field.  If  we 
could  raise  half  of  our  expenses  by  taxation,  and  could  add  to 
our  many  triumphs  on  land  and  sea  a  Waterloo  victory  over 
the  hosts  of  the  rebellion,  we  should  need  no  such  legislation 
as  the  gentleman  has  proposed  to  keep  down  the  price  of  gold. 
When  we  reach  that  happy  period  of  final  triumph,  the  gentle 
man's  bill,  if  enacted,  might  prove  harmless  ;  but  until  then  its 
manifest  effect  can  only  be  injurious  to  the  cause  it  seeks  to 
serve. 

[NOTE.  —  The  bill  was  recalled  from  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  and 
laid  on  the  table.] 


58  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


NEW  BASIS    OF   REPRESENTATION   IN   CONGRESS. 


[Remarks  of  Mr.  Elaine  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  Jan.  8,  1866.] 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  Since  the  beginning  of  the  present  session 
we  have  had  several  propositions  to  amend  the  Federal  Consti 
tution  with  respect  to  the  basis  of  representation  in  Congress. 
These  propositions  have  differed  somewhat  in  phrase,  but  they 
all  embrace  substantially  the  one  idea  of  making  suffrage,  in 
stead  of  population,  the  basis  of  apportioning  representatives ; 
in  other  words,  to  give  to  the  States  in  future  a  representation 
proportioned  to  their  voters  instead  of  their  inhabitants. 

The  effect  contemplated  and  intended  by  this  change  is  per 
fectly  well  understood,  and  on  all  hands  frankly  avowed.  It  is 
to  deprive  the  lately  rebellious  States  of  the  unfair  advantage 
of  a  large  representation  in  this  House,  based  on  their  colored 
population,  so  long  as  that  population  shall  be  denied  political 
rights  by  the  legislation  of  those  States.  The  proposed  amend 
ment  would  simply  say  to  those  States,  that  so  long  as  they 
refuse  to  enfranchise  their  black  population,  they  shall  have 
no  representation  based  on  their  numbers ;  but  admit  tjjem  to 
civil  and  political  rights,  and  they  shall  at  once  be  counted 
to  their  advantage  in  the  apportionment  of  representatives. 

The  direct  object  thus  aimed  at,  as  it  respects  the  rebellious 
States,  has  been  so  generally  approved  that  little  thought  seems 
to  have  been  given  to  the  incidental  evils  which  the  proposed 
Constitutional  amendment  would  inflict  on  certain  loyal  States. 
As  an  abstract  proposition  no  one  will  deny  that  population  is 
the  true  basis  of  representation ;  for  women,  children,  and 
other  non-voting  classes  may  have  as  vital  an  interest  in  the 
legislation  of  the  country  as  those  who  actually  deposit  the 
ballot.  Indeed,  the  very  amendment  we  are  discussing  implies 


RATIO  OF  VOTES  TO  POPULATION.  59 

that  population  is  the  true  basis,  inasmuch  as  the  exclusion  of 
the  black  people  of  the  South  from  political  rights  has  sug 
gested  this  indirectly  coercive  mode  of  securing  those  rights 
to  them.  Were  the  negroes  to  be  enfranchised  throughout 
the  South  to-day,  no  one  would  insist  on  the  adoption  of  this 
amendment ;  and  yet  if  the  amendment  shall  be  incorporated 
in  the  Federal  Constitution,  its  incidental  evils  will  abide  in 
the  loyal  States  long  after  the  direct  evil  which  it  aims  to  cure 
may  have  been  eradicated  in  the  Southern  States. 

If  voters  instead  of  population  shall  be  made  the  basis  of 
representation,  certain  results  will  follow,  not  fully  appreciated 
perhaps  by  some  who  are  now  urgent  for  the  change.  I  will 
confine  my  examination  of  these  results  to  the  free  States. 
The  ratio  of  voters  to  population  varies  widely  in  different  sec 
tions,  ranging  from  a  minimum  of  nineteen  per  cent  to  a  maxi 
mum  of  fifty-eight  per  cent;  and  the  changes  which  this  fact 
would  work  in  the  relative  representation  of  certain  States 
would  be  monstrous.  For  example,  California  has  a  popula 
tion  of  358,110,  and  Vermont  314,369,  and  each  has  three 
representatives  on  this  floor  to-day ;  but  California  cast  207,000 
votes,  in  electing  her  three  representatives,  and  Vermont  cast 
87,000.  Assuming  voters  as  the  basis  of  apportionment,  and 
allowing  to  Vermont  three  representatives,  California  would 
be  entitled  to  eight.  The  great  State  of  Ohio,  with  nearly 
seven  times  the  population  of  California,  would  have  but  little 
more  than  two  and  a  half  times  the  number  of  representatives ; 
and  New  York,  with  quite  eleven  times  the  population  of  Cali 
fornia,  would  have  in  the  new  style  of  apportionment  less  than 
five  times  as  many  members  of  this  House.  California  it  may 
be  said  presents  an  extreme  case,  but  no  more  so  than  will 
continually  recur  for  the  next  century  under  the  stimulus  to 
the  emigration  of  young  voters  from  the  older  States  to  the 
inviting  fields  of  the  Mississippi  valley  and  the  Pacific  slope. 

There  is  no  need,  Mr.  Speaker,  of  precipitating  this  evil  of 
inequality  among  States,  in  order  to  cure  the  evil  complained 
of.  The  Constitution  may  be  amended  so  as  to  prevent  the 
one  evil  without  involving  others  of  greater  magnitude,  and  I 
venture  to  express  the  belief  that  the  proposition  submitted  by 


60  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

me  this  morning  will,  if  adopted,  secure  the  desired  result. 
Let  me  briefly  explain  that  proposition. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  article  one,  section 
two,  clause  three,  reads  as  follows  to  the  first  period :  — 

"  Representatives  and  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several 
States  which  may  be  included  within  this  Union  according  to  their  respective 
numbers,  which  shall  be  determined  by  (adding  to  the  whole  number  of  free 
persons,  including  those  bound  to  service  for  a  term  of  years,  and  excluding  In 
dians  not  taxed,  Ihree-Jifths  of  all  other  persons.}  " 

The  portion  which  I  have  included  in  parentheses  has  become 
meaningless  and  nugatory  by  the  adoption  of  the  Constitutional 
amendment  which  abolishes  the  distinction  between  "  free  per 
sons  "  and  "  all  other  persons,"  and  being  thus  a  dead  letter 
might  as  well  be  formally  struck  out.  In  its  stead  I  propose 
to  insert  the  words  following  included  in  parentheses,  so  that 
the  clause  as  amended  would  read  thus :  — 

"  Representatives  and  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several 
States  which  may  be  included  within  this  Union  according  to  their  respective 
numbers,  which  shall  be  determined  by  (taking  the  whole  number  of  persons, 
except  those  to  whom  civil  or  political  rights  or  privileges  are  denied  or 
abridged  by  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  on  account  of  race  or 
color.)" 

This  is  a  very  simple  and  very  direct  way,  it  seems  to  me, 
of  reaching  the  desired  result  without  embarrassment  to  any 
other  question  or  interest.  It  leaves  population,  as  heretofore, 
the  basis  of  representation,  does  not  disturb  in  any  manner  the 
harmonious  relations  of  the  loyal  States,  and  it  conclusively 
deprives  the  Southern  States  of  all  representation  in  Congress 
on  account  of  the  colored  population,  so  long  as  those  States 
may  choose  to  abridge  or  deny  to  that  population  the  political 
rights  and  privileges  accorded  to  others. 

[NOTE.  —Mr.  Elaine's  brief  speech  was  the  first  argument  made  in  the  Thirty- 
niuth  Congress  against  the  plan  of  basing  representation  on  voters.] 


THE  RECONSTRUCTION  PROBLEM.  61 


THE    FOURTEENTH    AMENDMENT    AS    A    BASIS 
OF    RECONSTRUCTION. 


[Speech  of  Mr.  Elaine  at  a  Republican  mass  meeting  in  Skowhegan,  Maine, 
Aug.  29,  1866.] 

FELLO\Y-CITIZENS,  —  The  questions  which  seemed  most  press 
ing  at  the  close  of  the  war  last  year,  and  which  for  a  time  de 
manded  the  largest  share  of  popular  attention,  related  to  the 
finances  of  the  nation,  to  the  adjustment  of  our  currency,  to 
the  funding  of  our  large  public  debt.  These  have  since  been 
overshadowed  by  the  question  of  Reconstruction,  or,  rather,  by 
the  dispute  which  has  ensued  between  the  President  and  Con 
gress  as  to  the  terms  upon  which  the  States  lately  in  rebellion 
should  be  re-admitted  to  the  right  of  representation  in  Congress, 
and  to  that  full  rehabilitation,  as  members  of  the  Union,  which 
for  four  years  they  struggled  to  be  freed  from. 

At  the  outset  it  appeared  as  if  the  difference  between  the 
President  and  Congress,  which  rapidly  ran  into  a  decisive  quar 
rel  between  the  two,  would  prove  a  public  calamity ;  but  latterly 
it  has  seemed  that  this  very  divergence  of  views,  this  conflict  of 
authority,  will  lead  to  a  more  radical  and  more  lasting  settle 
ment  of  all  the  issues  that  grew  out  of  the  war,  than  would  have 
been  reached  if  the  President  and  Congress  had  hastily  agreed 
upon  the  terms  for  re-admitting  the  Southern  States.  Conflicts 
in  the  moral  world  and  conflicts  in  the  political  world  often 
result  in  great  good  ;  and  I  am  enough  of  an  optimist  to  believe 
that  the  present  struggle,  based,  as  we  must  presume  it  to  be, 
on  an  honest  difference  of  opinion  between  the  Executive  and 
Legislative  departments,  will  lead  to  a  broader  affirmation  of 
human  rights,  a  more  equitable  adjustment  of  the  relations  of 
the  two  sections,  a  more  effective  guaranty  of  the  liberties  and 


62  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

the  rights  of  those  who  have  so  recently  been  emancipated  from 
chattel  slavery. 

I  think  a  great  deal  of  valuable  time  and  a  great  deal  of 
useless  effort  have  been  expended  in  Congress  upon  abstract 
questions  which  really  are  of  no  value  whatever  in  the  final 
settlement  of  the  grave  problems  now  at  issue.  The  Congres 
sional  G-lobe  of  the  late  session  is  laden  down  with  discussions 
as  to  the  exact  present  status  of  the  late  insurrectionary  States, 
and  the  disputants  have  argued  the  question  with  all  the  zeal 
and  all  the  ability  of  those  ancient  theologians  who  waxed 
warm  over  theses  the  very  meaning  of  which  is  now  forgotten, 
or,  if  remembered,  makes  no  impression  whatever  upon  the 
creeds  of  the  Christian  world.  Two  great  theories  have  been 
maintained  respecting  these  States.  The  first,  which  is  the 
foundation  of  President  Johnson's  theory  of  Reconstruction, 
is  that  the  States  were  never  out  of  the  Union,  that  they 
never  ceased  to  be  members  of  the  Union,  that  their  rights 
under  the  Constitution  remain  unimpaired.  The  second,  which 
may  be  called  the  Congressional  basis  of  Reconstruction,  as 
many  present  it,  is  that  these  States,  if  not  out  of  the  Union, 
have  at  least  by  their  own  acts  of  secession  and  rebellion  lost 
their  Statehood,  if  they  be  not,  indeed,  reduced  to  the  condi 
tion  of  Territories ;  and  that  it  rests  with  Congress  to  deter 
mine  whether  they  shall  be  re-admitted  to  representation  in 
Senate  and  House,  when  they  shall  be  re-admitted,  and  the 
terms  upon  which  they  shall  be  re-admitted. 

I  do  not  believe  that  the  time  is  profitably  spent  which  is 
given  to  debating  these  abstract  questions,  nor  do  I  believe 
that,  in  the  end,  these  theories  affect,  one  way  or  the  other,  the 
actual  legislation  which  has  for  the  time  become  the  basis  of 
Reconstruction.  The  large  majority  of  the  members  of  Con 
gress  have  taken  no  great  part  in  these  opposing  speculative 
plans,  but  have  rather  agreed  with  the  position  taken  by  Mr. 
Lincoln  in  the  last  speech  he  ever  made,  in  which  he  gave  a 
faint  foreshadowing  of  his  own  views  of  Reconstruction.  Al 
luding  to  this  very  question  as  to  whether  the  States  were  still 
in  the  Union,  or  had  placed  themselves  outside  of  it,  Mr.  Lin 
coln  declared  that  "  it  is  not  practically  a  material  issue,"  and 
that  any  discussion  of  it  could  have  "  no  other  effect  than  the 


ME.  LINCOLN'S  VIEW  OF  RECONSTRUCTION.  63 

mischievous  one  of  dividing  friends."  In  his  own  quaint  way 
Mr.  Lincoln  defined  what  to  him  had  "  always  seemed  the  exact 
status  of  the  case."  "  We  all  agree,"  said  he,  "  that  the  seceded 
States  are  out  of  their  proper,  practical  relation  with  the  Union, 
and  that  the  sole  object  of  the  Government  is  to  get  them  back 
into  their  proper,  practical  relation.  I  believe  it  is  easier  to  do 
this  without  deciding,  or  even  considering,  whether  these  States 
have  ever  been  out  of  the  Union.  The  States  finding  them 
selves  once  more  at  home,  it  would  seem  immaterial  to  me  to 
inquire  whether  they  had  ever  been  abroad." 

Leaving  out  of  sight  all  theories,  therefore,  Congress  finally 
came  to  a  decision  which  I  think  the  overwhelming  majority 
of  voters  in  the  loyal  States  will  approve.  We  said,  in  effect, 
to  these  rebel  States,  that  having  withdrawn  their  representa 
tives  from  Congress  and  fought  for  four  years  to  destroy  the 
very  existence  of  the  National  Government,  we  intend  now  to 
impose  certain  conditions  upon  them  before  they  shall  be  re 
admitted  to  representation  in  Senate  and  House.  We  said,  in 
effect,  to  the  Southern  people,  that  we  do  not  intend  to  be  hard 
or  exacting  upon  them  :  we  do  not  intend  to  use  the  power  that 
is  in  our  hands  to  humiliate  or  degrade  them.  On  the  contrary, 
we  intend  to  deal  with  them  in  a  more  magnanimous  and  generous 
manner  than  ever  rebels  were  dealt  with  since  civil  government 
was  established  among  men.  We  are  willing  to  forget  all  that 
they  have  done  :  we  cast  out  of  our  memories  the  lives  that 
have  been  lost,  the  property  that  has  been  destroyed,  the  fright 
ful  distress  that  has  been  created,  in  consequence  of  their  rebel 
lion.  It  is  better  that  it  be  all  forgotten  and  in  the  bosom  of 
the  deep  ocean  buried.  We  do  not  deal  with  them  in  a  spirit 
of  revenge :  we  inflict  nothing  upon  them  for  the  past,  beyond 
what  is  needful  for  the  safety  of  the  future,  —  for  it  is  only  to 
the  future  that  we  now  look. 

In  the  first  place,  we  ask  that  they  will  agree  to  certain 
changes  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  and,  to  begin 
with,  we  want  them  to  unite  with  us  in  broadening  the  citizen 
ship  of  the  Republic.  The  slaves  recently  emancipated  by 
proclamation,  and  subsequently  by  Constitutional  Amendment, 
have  no  civil  status.  They  should  be  made  citizens.  We  do 
not,  by  making  them  citizens,  make  them  voters,  —  we  do  not, 


64  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

in  this  Constitutional  Amendment,  attempt  to  force  them  upon 
Southern  white  men  as  equals  at  the  ballot-box ;  but  we  do 
intend  that  they  shall  be  admitted  to  citizenship,  that  they  shall 
have  the  protection  of  the  laws,  that  they  shall  not,  any  more 
than  the  rebels  shall,  be  deprived  of  life,  of  liberty,  of  property, 
ivithout  due  process  of  law,  and  that  "  they  shall  not  be  denied 
the  equal  protection  of  the  law."  And  in  making  this  exten 
sion  of  citizenship,  we  are  not  confining  the  breadth  and  scope 
of  our  efforts  to  the  negro.  It  is  for  the  white  man  as  well. 
We  intend  to  make  citizenship  National.  Heretofore,  a  man 
has  been  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  because  he  was  a  citizen 
of  some  one  of  the  States :  now,  we  propose  to  reverse  that,  and 
make  him  a  citizen  of  any  State  where  he  chooses  to  reside,  by 
denning  in  advance  his  National  citizenship  —  and  our  Amend 
ment  declares  that  "all  persons  born  or  naturalized  in  the 
United  States,  and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are  citizens 
of  the  United  States  and  of  the  States  wherein  they  reside." 
This  Amendment  will  prove  a  great  beneficence  to  this  gener 
ation,  and  to  all  who  shall  succeed  us  in  the  rights  of  American 
citizenship ;  and  we  ask  the  people  of  the  revolted  States  to 
consent  to  this  condition  as  an  antecedent  step  to  their  re- 
admission  to  Congress  with  Senators  and  Representatives. 

But  that  is  not  all  we  ask.  The  white  people  of  the  South 
have  heretofore  had,  as  we  in  the  North  have  thought,  an  unfair 
advantage,  in  counting  their  property  in  the  basis  of  represen 
tation  against  the  flesh  and  blood  of  the  North.  They  have 
always  insisted  that  slaves  were  property,  —  as  much  as  horses 
or  mules  or  lands,  —  and  they  have  been  ready  to  fly  into  a 
passion  and  to  commit  violence  against  any  one  who  disputed 
that  proposition  ;  and  yet  when  our  Federal  Government  was 
formed  they  insisted  that  three-fifths  of  all  the  persons  that  con 
stituted  this  property  should  be  included  in  the  basis  of  repre 
sentation  in  Congress.  They  have  thus  had  an  unfair  advantage 
in  every  Congress  that  has  assembled  from  the  inauguration  of 
George  Washington  to  the  outbreak  of  the  Rebellion.  The 
negroes  are  now  free  men,  and  instead  of  three-fifths  entering 
into  the  basis  of  representation,  the  South  will  have  the  benefit 
of  the  whole  mass,  the  entire  five-fifths  ;  and  yet  the  Southern 
white  men  do  not  propose  to  allow  a  single  one  of  these  millions 


FAIR  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION.  65 

of  colored  men  to  vote.  This  Constitutional  Amendment  which 
we  are  proposing  does  not  command  that  the  Southern  States 
shall  permit  the  colored  man  to  vote.  At  what  time  they  shall 
advance  him  to  suffrage,  in  what  manner  they  shall  advance 
him  to  suffrage,  this  Constitutional  Amendment  leaves  to  their 
own  discretion.  It  simply  says  that  until  they  do  clothe  the 
colored  man  with  the  power  to  vote,  they  shall  not  include  him 
in  the  basis  of  representation. 

I  ask  you  now,  my  fellow-citizens,  if  that  proposition  is  not 
an  absolutely  fair  and  equitable  one  to  the  white  men  of  the 
South  ?  I  have  never  met  a  supporter  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  Admin 
istration,  even  of  those  most  conservative,  who  was  not  ready  to 
declare  that  the  system  of  Reconstruction  thus  proposed  is  not 
only  just  to  the  white  population  of  the  South,  but  generous  ? 
—  In  truth  it  consults  the  prejudices  of  the  white  population 
of  the  South  even  farther  than  is  just  to  the  colored  men,  all 
of  whom  were  loyal  to  the  Union,  and  many  of  whom  fought 
for  its  preservation.  A  great  many  of  our  Northern  people,  a 
very  large  proportion,  I  know,  of  my  own  constituents  in  this 
Kennebec  District,  find  fault  with  the  proposed  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution,  for  the  very  reason  that  it 
does  not  directly  confer  suffrage  upon  the  colored  man.  Our 
recent  Republican  State  Convention  adopted  a  resolution  unani 
mously  declaring  that  all  men,  without  regard  to  race,  creed,  or 
color,  should  be  declared  equal  in  civil  and  political  rights ;  and 
I  know  that  while  I  stand  here  urging  the  adoption  of  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment,  I  am  asking  them,  in  the  once  derided 
language  of  Mr.  Webster,  to  "  conquer  their  prejudices "  and 
take  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  precisely  as  it  is  submitted  for 
ratification. 

Proceeding  to  the  next  provision  of  the  Constitutional 
Amendment,  we  say,  in  effect,  to  these  Southern  men  that  we 
do  not  intend  to  prosecute  them  or  make  any  attempt  to  punish 
them.  The  war  is  over,  and  we  shall  not  disturb  the  peace 
now  reigning,  by  any  "  bloody  assizes  "  in  the  South.  A  practi 
cal  amnesty  exists,  and  those  who  took  part  in  the  rebellion  are 
free  from  all  danger  of  the  law.  But,  at  the  same  time,  we  do 
not  intend,  if  we  can  help  it,  that  the  men  who  had  been  mem 
bers  of  Congress,  who  had  served  in  State  Legislatures,  who 


66  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

had  been  officers  under  the  United  States  or  any  one  of  the 
States,  and  took  a  solemn  personal  oath  to  obej  and  defend  the 
Constitution  and  then  forswore  themselves  and  rushed  into 
the  rebellion,  shall  come  back  to  the  councils  of  the  Nation  until 
two-thirds  of  Congress  shall  declare  that  they  may  have  that 
privilege.  As  for  the  great  mass  of  the  Southern  men  who 
went  into  the  war,  they  are  perfectly  free  to  hold  any  office  to 
which  they  may  be  chosen,  — just  as  free  as  Northern  men,  — 
so  far  as  this  Constitutional  Amendment  affects  them.  We 
aim  the  exclusion  only  at  the  class  who  are  special,  conscious 
offenders,  and  the  aggregate  of  this  class  is  as  nothing  com 
pared  with  the  whole  number  who  engaged  in  the  rebellion. 
Careful  calculation  shows  that  these  disabilities  for  civil  ser 
vice  will  not  affect  more  than  fourteen  thousand  citizens  in 
the  entire  South,  out  of  the  millions  that  were  engaged  in 
insurrection. 

We  have  still  a  fourth  condition  to  impose  upon  the  Southern 
States.  The  war  for  the  preservation  of  the  Union  cost  a  vast 
sum  of  money.  It  was  advanced  largely  by  our  own  people, 
but  in  part  was  borrowed  in  Europe.  All  citizens  who  loaned 
to  the  Government  in  the  hour  of  its  distress  took  an  honorable 
and  patriotic  risk ;  all  foreigners  who  loaned  us  money  trusted 
to  a  National  honor  that  has  never  been  tarnished  ;  and  the  faith 
of  the  Nation  is  pledged  to  the  fair  and  strict  repayment  of  both 
citizen  and  alien,  on  terms  that  are  nominated  in  the  bonds 
which  each  received.  The  loyal  men  who  control  Congress  do 
not  intend  that  this  debt  shall  be  left  in  such  position  that  an 
adverse  majority  in  the  Senate  and  House  may  at  any  time 
withhold  payment,  or  even  threaten  to  do  so ;  and  therefore  we 
bind  up  the  rights  of  the  public  creditor  in  the  organic  law  of 
the  land,  and  declare  that  "  the  validity  of  the  public  debt  shall 
never  be  questioned."  More  than  that,  a  large  amount  of  this 
debt  was  incurred  in  the  payment  of  pensions  and  bounties  for 
soldiers,  and  we  throw  around  that,  also,  the  muniments  of  the 
Constitution,  declaring  that  it  stands  out  and  beyond  the  power 
of  a  majority  in  both  Houses  to  change. 

We  are  not  yet  through  with  these  conditions  for  the  South 
ern  States.  One  or  two  more  still  remain.  The  Government 
of  the  Confederate  States,  so  called,  issued  bonds  and  incurred 


CONDITIONS  IMPOSED  ON  REBEL  STATES.  67 

a  public  debt,  and  the  separate  States  that  composed  the  Con 
federacy  did  the  same,  —  all  in  support  of  the  war  against  the 
Union.  The  people  who  advanced  money  on  these  bonds  de 
serve  to  lose  it.  They  deserve  to  lose  it  if  they  were  citizens 
of  the  rebellious  States:  they  still  more  deserve  to  lose  it  if, 
as  aliens,  honorably  bound  not  to  aid  in  destroying  our  National 
life,  they  invested  their  money  in  these  securities  whose  value 
was  based  upon  the  hope  and  the  expectation  of  overthrowing 
the  American  Union.  We  now  bind  it  down  by  a  .Constitu 
tional  Amendment,  that  "  no  State  of  this  Union,"  or  the  United 
States,  if  that  were  possible  to  conceive,  "  shall  ever  pay  any 
debt  or  obligation  of  any  kind  incurred  in  aid  of  insurrection 
or  rebellion." 

One  step  farther,  still.  It  was  necessary  for  the  safety  of 
the  Union  to  destroy  the  institution  of  slavery,  as  a  war  meas 
ure,  justified  by  the  law  of  Nations,  —  an  act  made  perfect  by 
the  amended  organic  law  of  the  Republic.  There  may  be  some 
danger  that,  as  years  go  by,  the  people  of  the  South  who  were  in 
rebellion,  feeling  the  loss  of  their  slaves  and,  perhaps,  the  pov 
erty  and  hardship  that  resulted  from  that  loss,  will  ask  for  some 
remuneration  from  the  conquering  Government.  Aside  from 
the  injustice  of  the  demand,  the  attempt  to  pay  it  might  imperil 
the  National  debt,  which  is  due  by  every  obligation  of  honor, 
and  therefore  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  has  deemed  it 
wise  to  insert  in  the  Constitution  that  "  no  claim  for  the  loss 
or  emancipation  of  any  slave  shall  ever  be  paid  by  any  State 
Government  or  by  the  National  Government,  but  shall  forever 
be  held  to  be  illegal  and  void." 

And  then  we  asked,  although  it  was,  perhaps,  implied  without 
the  asking,  that  Congress  shall  reserve  to  itself,  as  part  of  this 
Amendment  to  the  organic  law  of  the  Republic,  the  power  "  to 
enforce,  by  appropriate  legislation,"  every  one  of  its  provisions. 

These  several  provisions  which  I  have  thus  somewhat  elabo 
rately  detailed,  constitute  the  proposed  Fourteenth  Amendment 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  This  could  only  be 
proposed  to  the  States,  as  you  well  know,  by  two-thirds  of  each 
branch  of  Congress.  As  matter  of  fact,  it  received  three- 
fourths  in  the  Senate  and  even  a  larger  proportion  in  the  House, 
—  the  vote  in  the  Senate  being  33  ayes  to  11  noes,  and  in  the 


68  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

House  120  ayes  to  32  noes.  It  is  now  before  the  States  of  this 
Union  for  ratification  or  rejection,  and  the  one  important  thing 
for  the  people  of  Maine  to  look  to  is  the  election  of  a  Legisla 
ture  which  will  ratify.  All  the  loyal  States,  together,  ratifying 
it  will  not  embody  it  in  the  Constitution.  The  theory  has  been 
maintained  by  some  of  the  more  extreme  men  of  the  Repub 
lican  party  that  three-fourths  of  the  States  required  by  the 
Constitution  to  ratify  the  Amendment,  should  under  present 
circumstances  properly  mean  three-fourths  of  the  loyal  States ; 
but  the  general,  and  I  think  the  wiser,  conclusion  of  the  party 
has  been  to  adhere  to  the  ratification  of  three-fourths  of  all  the 
States  of  the  Union  as  required  by  the  letter  of  the  Consti 
tution.  If  we  secure  three-fourths  of  all  the  States  the  validity 
of  the  Amendment  can  never  be  questioned,  but  if  we  should 
attempt  to  proceed  on  the  theory  that  three-fourths  of  the  loyal 
States  are  all  that  are  required,  we  might  find  great  trouble  in 
the  future  when  the  possible  changes  of  political  fortune  should 
bring  our  opponents  into  power. 

Discarding  this  theory  and  adhering  to  the  old  ways,  the 
situation  stands  thus,  viz. :  the  Southern  States  uniting  with 
the  Northern  States  in  incorporating  in  the  Constitution  the 
provisions  I  have  set  before  you,  shall  be  re-admitted  to  all  their 
former  rights  of  representation  in  Congress,  and  shall  be  re- 
clothed  with  all  the  power  of  a  State  in  the  Union.  I  do  not 
mean  that  Congress  has  given  a  specific  pledge  to  that  effect, 
but  I  do  mean  that  such  is  the  general  understanding,  —  an 
understanding  already  made  explicit  and  practical  by  the  admis 
sion  of  Tennessee  immediately  after  her  ratification  of  the  Four 
teenth  Amendment.  The  Legislature  of  that  State  was  in 
session  when  the  Amendment  was  finally  passed  by  Congress, 
and  ratified  it  without  delay.  Immediately  thereafter,  Con 
gress,  by  an  overwhelming  vote,  larger,  I  believe,  in  both 
branches  than  that  by  which  the  Amendment  itself  was  adopted, 
re-admitted  Tennessee  to  all  her  ancient  rights  in  the  Union. 
It  is  needless,  of  course,  to  say  that  Congress  stands  ready  to 
treat  in  the  same  manner  any  other  Southern  State  which  is 
ready  to  follow  the  example  of  Tennessee.  It  is  not  improb 
able,  therefore,  if  wise  councils  prevail  throughout  the  South, 
that  the  entire  Union  will  be  restored  before  the  expiration 


POSSIBLE  WRONG  TO  COLORED  MEN.  69 

of  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress,  and  Representatives  will  be  ad 
mitted  as  soon  as  the  new  apportionment,  consequent  upon  the 
new  basis  of  representation,  can  be  completed. 

At  the  same  time,  it  is  only  fair  to  state  that  if  the  more 
extreme  of  the  Secession  States  shall  refuse  to  accept  the 
conditions  now  offered,  Congress  will  not  stand  still  and  wait 
the  processes  of  delay  and  postponement  which  certain  Southern 
leaders  think  may  wear  out  the  patience  of  the  North  and 
carry  this  whole  question  into  the  Presidential  election  two 
years  hence.  A  large  proportion  of  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  and  of  the  Senate  desired  to  make  more  stringent  condi 
tions  than  are  contained  in  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  The 
Journals  of  both  branches  of  Congress  will  show  how  many 
radical  provisions  were  defeated,  and  if  now,  in  turn,  the  more 
conservative  provisions  that  are  submitted  shall  be  defeated 
in  the  South,  the  authors  of  the  radical  policy  will  gain  great 
prestige  and  influence  in  the  councils  of  the  Nation.  There  are 
many  men  who  believe  that  we  do  a  wrong,  not  only  to  the 
colored  man,  but  to  the  future  of  the  country,  by  declining  to 
exact  suffrage  for  him  as  one  of  the  conditions  of  Reconstruc 
tion.  But  the  more  moderate  policy  prevailed,  and  the  question 
is  left  to  the  wisdom  and  sound  judgment  of  the  leading  race 
in  the  South,  with  a  penalty  of  decreased  representation,  which 
in  my  judgment  will  in  time  force  the  South  to  concede  suffrage 
to  the  colored  man.  Perhaps  a  concession  gained  in  that  way 
may  prove  to  be  stronger  and  more  securely  fortified  than  a 
direct  and  absolute  condition  imposed  by  Congress. 

But  these  are  all  speculations.  The  actual  and  practical  duty 
before  us  is  to  ratify  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  The  people 
of  the  North  desire  a  complete  restoration  of  the  Union ;  com 
mercial,  financial  and  manufacturing  interests  demand  it ;  our 
safety  at  home,  our  prestige  abroad,  demand  it.  The  Demo 
cratic  party  and  the  South,  which  are  in  fact  identical,  misrep 
resent  the  actual  condition  of  affairs  when  they  declare  that  the 
Republicans  are  bent  on  keeping  the  Southern  States  out  of 
the  Union.  We  have  given  the  best  proof  of  our  own  sincerity, 
by  already  admitting  one  of  them,  and  by  laying  down  the 
moderate  conditions  upon  which  we  propose  to  admit  them  all. 
But  I  beg  you,  I  beg  the  Republicans  of  Maine,  who  constitute 


70  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

the  great  majority  of  the  entire  people  of  our  State,  not  to  be 
driven  into  any  surrender  of  the  position  which  demands  of  the 
Southern  States  that  they  shall  give  us  security  for  the  future. 
Indemnity  for  the  past  we  cannot  exact  from  them  :  they  cannot 
bring  back  the  dead  that  sleep  in  honored  graves,  they  cannot 
repay  to  us  the  thousands  of  millions  of  money  that  have  been 
sacrificed  in  the  war  to  retain  them  in  the  Union.  But  in  the 
name  of  the  sacred  dead,  and  as  a  security  for  wasted  treasure, 
we  ask  that  these  States  shall  be  so  bound  by  obligations  of 
duty  and  of  honor,  that  they  cannot  again  disturb  the  integrity 
of  the  Union,  or  again  subject  the  loyal  States  to  costly  sacrifice 
of  blood  and  to  the  destruction  of  the  National  resources. 

I  am  often  asked,  during  my  canvass  of  the  District,  what 
Congress  will  do  if  the  Southern  States  refuse  to  accept  this 
Fourteenth  Amendment  as  a  condition  to  their  restoration  to 
the  Union.  Of  course,  I  am  not  in  any  sense  empowered  to 
answer  that  question :  I  can  only  give  you  my  own  opinion,  and 
assure  you  of  my  own  action.  My  judgment  is  that  if  the 
Southern  States  reject  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  and  refuse 
to  return  to  the  Union  subject  to  its  conditions,  they  will  be 
kept  out  until  they  accept  what  to  them  will  be  a  still  harsher 
condition,  but  what  to  our  view  in  Maine  would  be  the  more 
just  condition,  —  of  accepting  impartial  manhood  suffrage,  with 
out  regard  to  creed,  caste  or  color,  as  the  basis  of  their  re-admis 
sion  to  representation  in  Congress.  I  know  that  the  Southern 
States  are  stimulated  by  leading  Northern  Democrats  and  by  all 
the  force  of  President  Johnson's  Administration,  to  resist  and 
reject  the  invitation  contained  in  the  submission  of  the  Four 
teenth  Amendment.  They  believe  that  a  revolution  in  public 
opinion  can  be  effected  against  the  Republicans,  that  the  more 
prolonged  the  exclusion  of  the  States  the  more  radical  the 
revolt  will  be  against  the  power  of  Congress,  and  that  if  the 
Southern  States  will  stand  out  solidly  against  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  they  will  soon  be  re-enforced  by  a  sufficient  number 
of  Northern  States  to  give  them  the  control  of  Congress  and 
the  dictation  of  their  own  terms  for  re-entering  the  Union. 

You  can  judge  as  well  as  I,  fellow-citizens,  as  to  the  probabil 
ity  of  these  calculations  of  our  opponents  being  fulfilled.  But 
it  is  no  time  for  us  to  tarry  in  speculation.  Action,  prompt  and 


THE  OBVIOUS  DUTY  OF  MAINE.  71 

decisive,  is  the  demand  of  the  hour.  We  can  do  much  to  pre 
vent  their  fulfilment.  We  can  influence  the  public  opinion  of 
Maine ;  we  can  send  a  united  Republican  delegation  to  Con 
gress  ;  we  can  give  a  large  popular  majority  to  our  gallant  can 
didate  for  Governor  [General  Chamberlain],  who  represents 
the  aggregate  Republican  opinion  of  the  State  on  all  the  issues 
involved.  Let  us  not  stop  to  think  of  what  other  States  may 
do,  but  let  us  employ  the  few  remaining  days  of  this  canvass, 
not  merely  in  defeating  the  Democratic  party,  —  for  that  result 
is  already  assured,  —  but  in  defeating  it  by  so  large  and  so 
overwhelming  a  vote  as  will  emphasize  the  opinion  of  Maine 
and  thereby  influence  the  judgment  of  other  States.  Let  us  in 
this  way  give  warning  to  the  Southern  States  that  if  they  reject 
the  conditions  now  offered  them,  they  will  not  be  tendered  a 
second  time  in  the  same  form,  and  each  time  they  are  rejected 
they  will  probably  have  an  additional  exaction  placed  upon 
them,  —  not  from  revenge  upon  the  citizens  of  those  States,  but 
because  of  the  reason  for  stringent  exaction  which  their  defiant 
rejection  of  fair  terms  and  their  truculent  disposition  would 
demand  as  essential  to  a  safe  system  of  Reconstruction.  I  think, 
in  the  present  crisis,  it  might  be  well  for  the  leaders  of  public 
opinion  in  the  South  to  refresh  their  minds  with  the  moral 
contained  in  the  ancient  fable  of  the  Sibylline  Books. 


72  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


SHALL    THE    LATE    REBELS   WIELD    THE    ENTIRE 
CIVIL    POWER    OF    THE    SOUTH? 


[The  Campaign  of  1866  closed  in  November  with  the  assured  and  general 
belief  that  the  Southern  States  would  not  accept  Reconstruction  on  the  basis 
of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  Some  of  those  States  had  already  rejected  it 
when  Congress  met  in  December.  On  that  basis  of  fact  Mr.  Blaine  delivered 
the  following  speech  in  the  House  on  the  10th  of  December,  1866.] 

MR.  CHAIRMAN,  —  The  popular  elections  of  1866  have  decided 
that  the  lately  rebellious  States  shall  not  be  re-admitted  to  the 
privilege  of  representation  in  Congress  on  any  less  stringent 
condition  than  the  adoption  of  the  pending  Constitutional 
Amendment.  But  those  elections  have  not  determined  that  the 
privilege  of  representation  shall  be  given  to  those  States  as  an 
immediate  consequence  of  adopting  the  amendment.  In  that 
respect  the  decision  of  the  loyal  people  has  been  rather  negative 
than  affirmative  ;  expressive  of  the  least  that  would  be  accepted 
rather  than  indicative  of  the  most  that  might  be  demanded. 
Had  the  Southern  States,  after  the  adjournment  of  Congress, 
accepted  the  amendment  promptly  and  in  good  faith,  as  a  defini 
tive  basis  of  adjustment,  the  loyal  States  would  have  indorsed 
it  as  such,  and  the  second  session  of  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress 
would  have  been  largely  engaged  in  perfecting  the  details  for 
the  full  and  complete  representation  of  all  the  States  on  the 
new  basis  of  apportionment. 

The  Southern  States,  however,  have  not  accepted  the  amend 
ment  as  a  basis  of  adjustment,  but  have  on  the  other  hand 
vehemently  opposed  it ;  every  one  of  them  that  has  thus  far 
acted  on  the  question,  with  the  exception  of  Tennessee,  having 
defiantly  rejected  it.  This  absolute  and  obdurate  refusal  on 
the  part  of  those  States  to  accept  the  amendment  as  the  condi 
tion  of  their  regaining  the  privilege  of  representation,  certainly 


RELATIVE  STRENGTH  OF  SECTIONS.  73 

relieves  Congress  from  whatever  promise  or  obligation  may 
have  been  originally  implied  in  regard  to  admitting  them  to 
representation  upon  their  adopting  the  amendment  —  this 
promise,  or  implication,  or  whatever  you  choose  to  term  it, 
being,  by  universal  understanding,  conditioned  on  the  South 
ern  States  accepting  the  amendment  in  good  faith,  as  was  signi 
ficantly  illustrated  in  the  case  of  Tennessee. 

But  even  if  the  Constitutional  Amendment  should  be  definitely 
accepted,  South  as  well  as  North,  as  the  condition  on  which  the 
rebel  States  are  to  regain  the  privilege  of  Congressional  rep 
resentation,  the  actual  enjoyment  of  that  privilege  would  of 
necessity  be  postponed  until  the  terms  of  the  amendment  could 
be  complied  with,  and  that  would  involve  a  somewhat  uncertain 
period  of  time.  I  take  it  for  granted,  as  I  did  when  I  voted 
for  the  Constitutional  Amendment,  and  as  I  presume  every 
other  gentleman  on  this  floor  did,  that  we  are  not  to  be  guilty 
of  the  supreme  folly  of  declaring  that  the  basis  of  represen 
tation  is  so  unfair  as  to  require  correction  by  Constitutional 
Amendment,  and  then  forthwith  admit  the  Southern  States  to 
the  House  with  their  undue  and  inequitable  share  of  represen 
tatives.  If  the  Southern  States  are  to  be  deprived  of  their 
undue  share  of  representatives,  based  on  their  non-voting  pop 
ulation,  they  should  be  deprived  of  them  at  once,  and  not  be 
admitted,  even  temporarily,  with  the  old  apportionment,  by 
which  they  would  continue  to  exercise  in  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  and  in  the  Electoral  Colleges  the  same  weight  of 
influence  enjoyed  by  them  before  the  rebellion. 

The  population  of  the  States  recently  slave-holding,  was  by 
the  census  of  1860  only  12,240,000,  of  whom  8,039,000  were 
whites  and  4,201,000  negroes.  The  population  of  the  free 
States  by  the  same  census  was  19,201,546,  of  whom  only  237,- 
000  were  negroes.  It  would  hardly  be  maintained  by  any  one 
that  the  States  lately  slave-holding,  taken  as  a  whole,  have  done 
any  thing  more  than  hold  good  their  population  of  1860,  while 
in  the  free  States,  despite  the  losses  of  the  war,  the  ratio  of 
increase  has  never  been  more  rapid  than  since  that  year.  It  is 
speaking  with  moderation  to  say  that  the  population  of  the  free 
States  is  to-day  25,000,000. 

Supposing  the   Constitutional   Amendment   to   be   adopted, 


74  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

therefore,  as  the  basis  of  re-admitting  the  Southern  States  to  the 
privilege  of  representation,  it  would  be  a  cruel  mockery  of  the 
whole  aim  and  intent  of  that  amendment  to  usher  those  States 
upon  this  floor  with  the  full  number  of  representatives  assigned 
them  by  the  census  of  1860,  when  three-fifths  of  their  slaves 
and  all  their  disfranchised  free  people  of  color  were  allowed 
them  in  fixing  the  basis  of  apportionment.  Were  they  so  ad 
mitted  to-day,  the  aggregate  number  of  representatives  from 
the  late  slave  States  would  be  eighty-five,  and  from  the  free 
States  one  hundred  and  fifty-six  —  making  a  House  of  two  hun 
dred  and  forty-one  in  all.  And  yet  if  those  two  hundred  and 
forty-one  members  were  divided  between  the  free  and  slave 
States  on  the  basis  of  the  representative  population  as  directed 
by  the  Constitutional  Amendment,  the  slave  States  would  have 
but  fifty-eight  members,  while  the  free  States  would  have  one 
hundred  and  eighty-three. 

A  corresponding  change  would  be  wrought  in  the  Electoral 
Colleges.  Were  the  Government  to  permit  an  election  for 
President  and  Vice-President  in  1868  on  the  basis  assigned  by 
the  census  of  1860,  the  late  slave  States  would  have  115  elec 
toral  votes,  while  the  free  States  would  have  198.  But  on  the 
actual  basis  contemplated  by  the  Constitutional  Amendment 
the  late  slave  States  would  have  but  88,  while  the  free  States 
would  have  225.  On  the  old  basis  the  free  States  would  thus 
have  a  majority  of  83,  while  on  the  basis  of  the  Constitutional 
Amendment  they  would  have  a  majority  of  127 ;  a  net  differ 
ence  of  44  electoral  votes  in  favor  of  the  free  States. 

In  view  of  these  results,  which  are  the  plainest  arithmetical 
deductions,  it  could  not  be  expected  that  the  free  States,  even 
if  they  were  to  adhere  to  the  Constitutional  Amendment  as  the 
ultimatum  of  adjustment,  would  consent  to  have  the  lately 
rebellious  States  admitted  to  representation  here  and  to  a  par 
ticipation  in  the  Electoral  Colleges  until  the  relative  and  proper 
strength  of  the  several  States  should  be  adjusted  anew  by  a 
special  census  and  by  an  apportionment  made  in  pursuance 
thereof.  It  was  in  this  belief  and  with  these  views  that  at  the 
last  session  of  Congress  I  framed  a  bill  providing  for  a  special 
enumeration  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  States,  which  bill 
was  on  my  motion  referred  to  the  Reconstruction  Committee, 


THE  REAL  CONDITIONS  OF  RECONSTRUCTION.         75 

and  has  never  been  reported  to  the  House  by  that  Committee 
either  favorably  or  adversely. 

What  then  shall  be  done  ?  The  people,  so  far  as  I  represent 
them,  have  plainly  spoken  in  the  late  elections,  and  the  inter 
pretation  of  their  voice  is  not  difficult.  They  have  pronounced 
with  unmistakable  emphasis  in  favor  of  the  Constitutional 
Amendment  with  the  superadded  and  indispensable  prerequi 
site  of  manhood  suffrage.  The  Constitutional  Amendment  with 
its  definition  of  American  citizenship,  with  its  guaranty  of  the 
national  obligations,  and  with  its  prohibition  of  the  assumption 
of  the  rebel  debt,  is  an  invaluable  addition  to  our  organic  law. 
We  cannot  surrender  its  provisions,  and  the  rebel  States  cannot 
by  their  utmost  resistance  defeat  its  ultimate  adoption.  It  is 
too  late  to  deny  or  even  to  argue  the  right  or  power  of  the 
Government  to  impose  upon  those  States  conditions  precedent 
to  their  resumption  of  the  privilege  of  representation.  The 
President  set  the  example  by  exacting  three  highly  important 
concessions  from  those  States  as  his  basis  of  reconstruction. 
Congress  followed  by  imposing  four  other  conditions  as  its  basis 
of  reconstruction.  Now  the  people  have  spoken,  demanding 
one  additional  condition  as  their  basis  of  reconstruction,  and 
that  condition  is  the  absolute  equality  of  American  citizens  in 
civil  and  political  rights  without  regard  to  caste,  color,  or  creed. 

The  objection  in  the  popular  mind  of  the  loyal  States  to  the 
Constitutional  Amendment  as  a  basis  of  final  adjustment,  is  not 
directed  to  what  that  amendment  will  effect,  but  to  what  it 
will  not  effect.  Among  the  objects  of  prime  importance  which 
it  will  not  effect  is  the  absolute  protection  of  the  two  classes 
in  the  South  to  whom  the  Government  owes  a  special  debt,  — 
the  loyal  white  men  and  the  loyal  black  men.  The  amend 
ment,  if  made  the  basis  of  final  adjustment  without  further 
condition,  leaves  the  rebel  element  of  the  South  in  possession 
of  the  local  governments,  free  to  persecute  the  Union  men 
of  all  complexions  in  numberless  ways,  and  to  deprive  them  of 
all  participation  in  civil  affairs,  provided  they  will  submit  to 
a  curtailed  representation  in  Congress  as  the  penalty.  The 
danger  is  that  they  would  accept  the  infliction  on  themselves 
in  order  to  secure  the  power  of  visiting  the  loyalists  with  a  full 
measure  of  vengeance  ;  just  as  certain  religious  denominations  in 


76  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

England,  at  various  times  under  the  reign  of  the  Stuarts,  favored 
measures  of  proscription  which  bore  with  some  hardship  on 
themselves,  because  they  were  enabled  thereby  to  punish  some 
rival  and  hated  sectaries  with  positive  severity  and  cruelty. 

Among  the  most  solemn  duties  of  a  sovereign  government  is 
the  protection  of  those  citizens  who,  under  great  temptations 
and  amid  great  perils,  maintain  their  faith  and  their  loyalty. 
The  obligation  of  the  Federal  Government  to  protect  the  loy 
alists  of  the  South  is  supreme,  and  they  must  take  all  needful 
means  to  provide  that  protection.  The  most  needful  is  the 
gift  of  free  suffrage,  and  that  must  be  guaranteed.  There  is 
no  protection  you  can  extend  to  a  man  so  effective  and  con 
clusive  as  the  power  to  protect  himself.  And  in  assuring  pro 
tection  to  the  loyal  citizen  you  assure  permanency  to  the 
Government.  The  bestowal  of  suffrage  is  therefore  not  merely 
the  discharge  of  a  personal  obligation  toward  those  who  are 
enfranchised,  but  it  is  the  most  far-sighted  provision  against 
social  disorder,  the  surest  guaranty  for  peace,  prosperity,  and 
public  justice. 


NATIONAL  HONOR  AND  THE  NATIONAL  DEBT.        77 


NATIONAL    HONOR    IN    THE    PAYMENT    OF 
THE    NATIONAL    DEBT. 


[Speech  of  Mr.  Elaine  in  the  House  of  Representatives  Nov.  26,  1867,  the 
House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  State  of  the  Union.] 

MR.  CHAIRMAN,  —  Within  the  past  few  months,  some  erro 
neous  and  mischievous  views  have  been  put  forward  in  regard 
to  the  nature  of  the  public  obligation  imposed  by  the  debt  of 
the  United  States.  Without  stopping  to  notice  the  lesser  lights 
of  the  new  doctrine,  and  not  caring  to  analyze  the  various  forms 
of  repudiation  suggested  from  irresponsible  sources  throughout 
the  country,  I  propose  to  review,  as  briefly  as  may  be,  the  posi 
tion  contemporaneously  assumed  by  two  able  and  distinguished 
gentlemen — the  one  from  the  West,  the  other  from  the  East  — 
the  one  the  late  candidate  of  the  Democratic  party  for  the  Vice- 
Presidency —  [Mr.  Pendleton  of  Ohio]  —  the  other  a  prominent 
member  of  this  House  from  one  of  the  strongest  Republican 
districts  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts  [General  Butler]. 

The  position  of  these  gentlemen  I  understand  to  be  simply 
this :  that  the  principal  of  the  United  States  bonds,  known  as  the 
five-twenties,  may  be  fairly  and  legally  paid  in  paper  currency  by 
the  Government  after  the  expiration  of  five  years  from  the  date  of 
issue. 

A  brief  review  of  the  origin  of  the  five-twenty  bonds  will 
demonstrate,  I  think,  that  this  position  is  in  contravention  of 
the  honor  and  good  faith  of  the  National  Government ;  that  it 
is  hostile  to  the  spirit  and  the  letter  of  the  law ;  that  it  con 
temptuously  ignores  the  common  understanding  between  bor 
rower  and  lender  at  the  time  the  loan  was  negotiated ;  and  that 
finally,  even  if  such  mode  of  payment  were  honorable  and 
practicable,  it  would  prove  disastrous  to  the  financial  interests 
of  the  Government  and  the  general  prosperity  of  the  country. 


78  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

I  crave  the  attention  and  the  indulgence  of  the  House  while  I 
recapitulate  the  essential  facts  in  support  of  my  assertion. 

The  issue  of  the  five-twenty  bonds  was  originally  authorized 
by  the  act  of  Feb.  25, 1862,  which  provided  for  the  large  amount 
of  1500,000,000.  It  is  this  series  which  was  successfully  dis 
posed  of  by  Jay  Cooke  &  Co.  in  1863,  and  of  which  a  great  pro 
portion  was  subsequently  purchased  by  foreign  capitalists.  It 
will  be  borne  in  mind  that  up  to  that  time  in  all  the  loan  bills 
passed  by  Congress  not  one  word  had  ever  been  said  in  regard 
to  coin  payment  either  of  bond  or  coupon ;  and  yet  it  will  be 
equally  borne  in  mind  that  coin  payment,  both  of  the  principal 
and  interest  of  the  public  debt,  has  been  the  invariable  rule 
from  the  foundation  of  the  Government.  N,o  instance  to  the 
contrary  can  be  found  in  our  history.  In  the  pithy  language  of 
Nathaniel  Macon,  "  our  Government  was  a  hard-money  Govern 
ment,  founded  by  hard-money  men,  and  its  debts  were  hard- 
money  debts." 

It  will  be  still  further  bqrne  in  mind  that  when  the  bill 
authorizing  the  original  issue  of  five-twenties  was  under  dis 
cussion  in  Congress  no  man  of  any  party,  either  in  the  Senate 
or  the  House,  ever  intimated  that  those  bonds  were  to  be  paid 
in  any  thing  else  than  gold  or  silver.  The  issue  of  legal-tender 
notes  of  contemporaneous  origin  was  regarded  as  a  temporary 
expedient,  forced  upon  us  by  the  cruel  necessities  and  demands 
of  war,  and  it  was  universally  conceded  that  the  specie  basis 
was  to  be  resumed  long  before  the  bonds  should  mature  for 
payment.  And  in  order  that  the  public  creditor  might  have  the 
amplest  assurance  of  the  payment  of  loth  principal  and  interest 
in  coin  it  was  specially  enacted  that  all  duties  on  imports  should 
be  paid  in  coin,  and  the  amount  thus  raised  was  distinctly 
pledged,  not  only  to  the  payment  of  the  interest  in  coin,  but  to 
the  formation  of  a  sinking  fund  for  the  ultimate  redemption  of 
the  principal  in  coin.  This  provision  is  so  important  that  I 
quote  it  entire.  After  providing  that  the  duties  shall  be  paid 
in  coin,  the  act  devotes  the  amount  so  collected  to  the  follow 
ing  specific  purposes :  — 

"First,  To  the  payment  in  coin  of  the  interest  on  the  bonds  of  the 
United  States. 

"  Second,  To  the  purchase  or  payment  of  one  per  cent  of  the  entire  debt 


PAYMENT  OF  THE  PUBLIC  DEBT.  79 

of  the  United  States,  to  be  made  within  each  fiscal  year  after  the  first  day 
of  July,  1862,  which  is  to  be  set  apart  as  a  sinking-fund,  and  the  interest  of 
which  shall  be  in  like  manner  applied  to  the  purchase  or  payment  of  the 
public  debt,  as  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall  from  time  to  time 
direct." 

Much  carping  and  criticism  have  been  expended  on  the  second 
clause  of  this  provision,  mainly  by  those  who  seem  desirous  of 
wresting  and  distorting  its  plain  and  obvious  meaning.  Brush 
ing  aside  all  fine-spun  construction  and  cunning  fallacy,  it  is 
manifest  that  the  sinking-fund  herein  authorized  was  primarily 
to  be  formed  from  coin,  and  that  it  was  only  to  be  invested 
and  re-invested  in  securities  whose  interest  was  equally  pledged 
in  coin ;  that  this  process  was  not  to  be  confined  to  any  specific 
number  of  years,  but  was  limited  only  by  the  amount  and  the 
duration  of  the  debt  which  was  ultimately  to  be  redeemed  by 
the  sinking-fund  thus  constituted.  The  sinking-fund  was  thus 
to  receive  an  annual  increment  in  coin  amounting  to  the  one- 
hundredth  part  of  the  entire  debt  of  the  Government ;  and  this 
increment  was  to  be  invested  only  in  securities  which  would 
yield  coin  interest  for  the  further  increment  of  the  fund.  It 
would  be  difficult  to  conceive  how  the  language  of  an  enact 
ment  could  more  distinctly  recognize  and  provide  for  the  ulti 
mate  coin  payment  of  the  entire  bonded  debt  of  the  nation. 
Instead  of  the  Government  having  the  right  at  this  late  day 
to  change  its  coin  obligation  into  one  of  paper,  it  seems  to  me 
that  the  public  creditors  could  with  far  more  consistency 
allege  that  the  Government  had  not  kept  faith  with  them  by 
failing  to  provide  the  sinking-fund  which  was  guaranteed  at 
the  outset  as  one  of  the  special  securities  of  the  loan. 

But  the  argument  does  not  rest  merely  on  the  after-con 
struction  of  a  statute  to  prove  that  the  principal  of  the  five- 
twenties  is  payable  in  coin.  The  declarations  in  Congress 
when  the  measure  was  under  consideration  were  numerous  and 
specific.  Indeed,  no  other  possible  mode  of  payment  was  even 
hinted  at,  and  Mr.  Stevens,  then  chairman  of  the  Ways  and 
Means,  was  emphatic  and  repeated  in  his  assertions  that  the 
bonds  were  redeemable  in  coin.  He  stated  this  fact  no  less  than 
three  times  in  his  speech  of  Feb.  6,  1862,  giving  it  all  the 
prominence  and  emphasis  that  iteration  and  reiteration  could 
impart.  He  spoke  of  the  "redemption  in  gold  in  twenty 


80  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

years "  as  one  of  the  special  inducements  for  capitalists  to 
invest,  and  he  gave,  in  every  form  of  words,  the  sanction  of 
his  influential  position  arid  great  name,  to  the  maintenance 
of  the  coin  standard  in  the  payment  of  the  bonds. 

It  may  astonish  even  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  him 
self  to  be  reminded  that  within  less  than  three  years  from  the 
date  of  these  declarations  he  asserted  on  this  floor  —  referring 
to  the  five-twenty  bonds  —  that  "  it  is  just  as  clear  as  any  thing 
is  clear  that  the  interest  is  payable  in  gold,  but  the  principal  in 
lawful  money"  He  made  this  startling  statement  in  answer  to 
a  question  addressed  to  him  by  my  honorable  friend  from  Ohio 
[Mr.  Spalding],  and  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  has 
quoted  it  in  his  argument  on  this  question  as  though  it  had 
been  made  when  the  five-twenty  bill  was  originally  introduced, 
and  was  to  be  taken  as  the  authorized  opinion  of  the  Ways  and 
Means  Committee  at  that  time.  I  have  already  shown  that 
the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  was  a  firm  advocate  of  coin 
payment,  and  that  a  considerable  period  had  elapsed  before  he 
experienced  his  marvelous  change  of  opinion  on  this  question. 
But  it  is  due  to  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  to  say  that, 
late  as  he  was  in  this  declaration,  he  was  in  advance  of  other 
gentlemen  who  have  since  figured  prominently  as  advocates 
of  the  doctrine.  Should  this  scheme  of  repudiation  ever  suc 
ceed,  it  is  but  just  to  give  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania 
the  honor  of  first  proposing  it.  He  announced  it  on  this  floor 
while  yet  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  was  doing  honor 
able  service  on  the  tented  field,  and  while  Mr.  Pendleton  was 
still  adhering  to  those  hard-money  theories  of  which  he  was  a 
conspicuous  defender  during  his  service  in  this  House. 

But  I  digress.  I  was  stating  that  while  the  original  five- 
twenty  bill  was  pending  the  declaration  that  the  bonds  were 
redeemable  in  coin  was  constantly  repeated.  It  was  the  ground 
assumed  by  every  member  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means,  so  far  as  the  record  shows,  and  it  was  likewise  the 
ground  taken  by  the  Finance  Committee  of  the  Senate,  Mr. 
Fessenden  and  other  members  being  on  record  in  many  ways 
to  that  effect.  While  so  many  gentlemen  in  both  branches  of 
Congress  were  repeating  that  these  bonds  were  redeemable  in 
coin,  it  is  a  significant  circumstance,  as  already  intimated,  that 


PAYMENT  OF  THE  PUBLIC  DEBT.          81 

no  one  ventured  the  opposite  opinion.  The  universality  of  the 
understanding  at  that  time  is  that  which  renders  a  different 
construction  now  so  reprehensible.  Mr.  Pendleton  was  present 
in  his  seat  during  the  whole  discussion  of  the  measure,  and  he 
was  an  active  and  frequent  participant  therein.  Then  was  his 
time  to  have  enunciated  his  scheme  of  greenback  payment  if  he 
ever  intended  it  in  good  faith.  As  a  gentleman  of  candor,  how 
ever,  I  am  sure  he  will  confess  that  he  never  dreamed  of  such 
an  idea  till  long  after  the  bonds  were  purchased  by  the  people, 
and  possibly  not  until  some  prospect  of  party  advantage  lured 
him  to  the  adoption  of  a  theory  which  is  equally  at  war  with 
the  letter  of  the  law  and  with  sound  principles  of  finance. 

After  the  bill  became  a  law  Mr.  Chase,  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  proceeded  to  place  the  loan  formally  on  the  market, 
and  following  the  uniform  previous  practice  of  the  Government, 
and  especially  adopting  the  language  used  by  Mr.  Stevens,  and 
other  gentlemen  in  both  branches  of  Congress,  he  officially  pro 
claimed  through  the  loan  agents  of  the  Government  that  the 
five-twenty  bonds  were  "  a  six  per  cent  loan,  the  interest  and 
principal  payable  in  coin."  It  was  on  this  basis,  with  this 
understanding,  with  this  public  proclamation,  that  the  people 
were  asked  to  subscribe  to  the  loan.  They  had  the  assurance 
of  an  unbroken  practice  on  the  part  of  the  Government,  ren 
dered  still  more  significant  by  the  provision  for  a  sinking-fund 
in  coin ;  they  had  the  general  assurance  of  both  branches  of 
Congress,  especially  expressed  through  the  appropriate  channels 
of  the  chairman  of  Finance  in  the  Senate  and  the  chairman  of 
Ways  and  Means  in  the  House,  and  further  and  finally  enforced 
by  a  distinct  declaration  to  that  effect  by  the  public  advertise 
ment  proposing  the  loan  to  the  people,  issued  by  the  authority 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  If  any  thing  could  con 
stitute  an  honorable  contract  between  borrower  and  lender  — 
between  Government  and  people  —  then  was  it  a  contract  that 
the  five-twenty  bonds  should  be  redeemed  in  coin. 

I  have  been  thus  minute,  and  possibly  tedious,  in  regard  to 
the  facts  attending  the  issue  of  the  first  series  of  five-twenties 
because  in  effect  that  established  the  rule  for  all  subsequent 
issues.  The  principle  laid  down  so  clearly  in  the  proposal  for 
the  first  loan  was  steadily  adhered  to  afterward.  It  is  quite 


82  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

true  that  the  chairman  of  Ways  and  Means  [Mr.  Stevens],  as 
I  have  already  said,  changed  his  ground  on  the  question,  but 
he  failed  to  influence  Congress,  notwithstanding  his  parade  of 
terrible  figures  showing  the  utter  impossibility  of  ever  paying 
coin  interest,  to  say  nothing  of  coin  principal.  The  gentle 
man  can  recall  his  statistics  with  amusement,  if  not  with 
advantage,  from  that  grave  of  unfulfilled  prophecies  to  which 
he,  in  common  with  the  rest  of  us,  have  sent  many  baseless 
predictions. 

The  next  loan  bill  passed  by  Congress  was  that  of  March  3, 
1863,  authorizing  the  borrowing  of  1900,000,000.  This  is  com 
monly  known  as  the  ten-forty  act,  and  it  contains  the  special 
provision  that  both  principal  and  interest  shall  be  payable 
in  coin.  But  this  provision  was  never  inserted  by  way  of 
discrimination  against  the  five-twenties,  implying  that  they 
were  to  be  paid  in  paper  currency.  Its  origin  palpably  dis 
credits  any  such  inference.  It  was  moved  as  an  amendment 
by  Mr.  Thomas  of  Massachusetts,  and  it  was  moved  to  meet 
and  repel  the  first  covert  insinuation  that  any  bond  of  the 
United  States  was  redeemable  in  any  thing  else  than  coin. 
The  chairman  of  Ways  and  Means,  in  apparent  forgetfulness  of 
his  declaration  the  preceding  year,  had  for  the  first  time  inti 
mated  that  the  principal  of  United  States  bonds  was  payable  in 
paper  money,  and  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Thomas,  as  the  discus 
sion  reported  in  the  Globe  clearly  discloses,  was  intended  as  a 
sharp  protest  against  this  heresy  of  the  gentleman  from  Penn 
sylvania,  and  as  such  it  was  adopted  by  the  House  by  a  majority 
so  overwhelming  that  its  opponents  did  not  call  for  a  division. 
During  the  discussion,  Mr.  Horton  of  Ohio,  a  distinguished 
member  of  the  Ways  and  Means,  and  a  gentleman  of  very  high 
character  in  every  respect,  said :  — 

"  I  -wish  to  state  here  that  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  in  framing 
this  bill,  never  dreamed  that  these  twenty-year  bonds  were  to  be  payable  in 
any  thing  other  than  coin  until  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr. 
Stevens]  told  it  yesterday  upon  the  floor  of  the  House." 

In  this  connection  I  desire  the  special  attention  of  the  House 
to  one  fact  of  conclusive  import,  and  it  is  this :  at  the  time  this 
ten-ferty  loan  bill  was  passed,  March  3,  1863,  only  $25,000,000 
of  the  five-twenty  loan,  authorized  the  year  before,  had  been 


PAYMENT  OF  THE  PUBLIC  DEBT.  83 

disposed  of.  It  was  in  the  succeeding  summer  and  autumn  of 
1863,  especially  after  the  triumph  of  the  Union  arms  at  Vicks- 
burg  and  Gettysburg,  that  those  marvellous  sales  of  1500,000,000 
were  effected  through  the  Government  agency  of  Jay  Cooke  & 
Co.  And  yet  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  would  have 
us  believe  that  the  people  subscribed  for  a  loan  of  $500,000,000 
that  was  payable  in  five  years  in  paper  currency,  when  another 
loan,  for  a  larger  amount,  to  run  forty  years,  expressly  payable  in 
coin,  was  already  authorized  and  about  to  be  put  on  the  market. 
Such  a  conclusion  cannot  be  reconciled  even  with  the  common 
sanity,  to  say  nothing  of  the  proverbial  shrewdness,  of  those 
who  invested  their  money  in  the  five-twenty  loan.  Every  one 
can  see,  sir,  that  not  one  dollar  of  the  five-twenty  loan  could 
have  been  disposed  of  on  the  understanding  that  the  bonds  were 
redeemable  in  currency,  while  another  loan  for  a  longer  period, 
possibly  at  the  same  rate  of  interest,  for  the  bill  so  allowed,  and 
absolutely  redeemable  in  coin,  was  already  authorized,  and  imme 
diately  to  be  offered  to  the  public. 

The  next  loan  bill  in  the  order  of  time  was  the  act  of  March 
3,  1864,  which  was  merely  supplementary  to  the  ten-forty  bill, 
whose  history  I  have  just  reviewed.  It  covered  the  amount  of 
$200,000,000,  and,  like  the  bill  to  which  it  formed  a  supple 
ment,  it  provided  for  both  interest  and  principal  to  be  paid  in 
coin.  Under  this  bill  more  than  one  hundred  and  seventy-five 
million  dollars  were  negotiated,  partly  in  ten-forties,  and  partly 
in  five-twenties ;  by  far  the  greater  part  in  the  former.  But  as 
some  five-twenties  were  negotiated  under  it,  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts,  even  on  the  line  of  logic  which  he  has  sought  to 
travel,  will  be  compelled  to  acknowledge  that  they  were  pay 
able  in  coin,  and  hence,  according  to  his  theory,  some  of  the 
five-twenties  are  redeemable  in  coin  and  some  in  paper  —  a  dis 
tinction  which  has  never  yet  been  proclaimed,  and  the  equity 
of  which  would  hardly  be  apparent  to  the  holders  of  the  same 
description  of  bonds — identical  in  phrase,  and  differing  only 
in  the  subordinate  and  immaterial  circumstance  of  date. 

The  last  loan  bill  to  which  I  need  specially  refer  is  that  of 
June  30,  1864,  under  the  provisions  of  which  the  five-twenties 
bearing  that  date  were  issued.  The  seven-thirties,  authorized 
by  the  same  act,  as  well  as  by  the  subsequent  acts  of  Jan.  28 


84  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

and  March  3,  1865,  were  convertible  into  five-twenties  of  the 
same  tenor  and  description  with  those  whose  issue  was  directly 
authorized;  so  that  in  reviewing  the  history  of  the  loan  bill 
of  June  30,  1864,  I  shall,  in  effect,  close  the  narrative  of  Con 
gressional  proceedings  in  regard  to  five-twenty  bonds.  The 
history  of  that  bill  shall  be  brief.  It  was  discussed  in  its  vari 
ous  provisions  very  elaborately  in  both  branches  of  Congress. 
As  reported  from  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  it  was 
worded  like  all  previous  bonds,  promising  to  pay  so  many 
dollars  to  the  holder,  without  specifying  that  they  were  to  be 
any  thing  else  than  coin  dollars,  in  which  United  States  bonds 
had  always  been  paid.  Toward  the  close  of  the  discussion  Mr. 
Brooks  of  New  York,  then,  as  now,  a  member  of  this  House, 
moved  to  insert  an  amendment  providing  especially  that  the 
bonds  should  be  "payable  in  coin"  Mr.  Brooks  was  answered 
by  Mr.  Hooper  of  Massachusetts,  on  behalf  of  the  Ways  and 
Means  Committee,  as  follows :  — 

"The  bill  of  last  year,  the  1900,000,000  bill,  contained  these  words,  but 
it  was  not  deemed  necessary  or  considered  expedient  to  insert  them  in  this 
bill.  I  will  send  to  the  desk  and  ask  to  have  read,  as  a  part  of  my  reply  to 
the  gentleman  from  New  York,  a  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
giving  his  views  upon  this  point." 

The  Clerk  react  as  follows  from  Secretary  Chase's  letter  dated  May  18, 
1864:  — 

"  It  has  been  the  constant  usage  of  the  Department  to  redeem  all  coupon 
and  registered  bonds,  forming  part  of  the  funded  or  permanent  debt  of  the 
United  States,  in  coin,  and  this  usage  has  not  been  deviated  from  during 
my  administration  of  its  affairs. 

"  The  five-twenty  sixes,  payable  twenty  years  from  date,  though  redeem 
able  after  five  years,  are  considered  as  belonging  to  the  funded  or  permanent 
debt,  and  so  also  are  the  twenty  years  sixes,  into  which  the  three  years 
seven-thirty  notes  are  convertible.  These  bonds,  therefore,  according  to  the 
usage  of  the  Government,  are  payable  in  coin." 

Apparently  satisfied  with  this  statement,  Mr.  Brooks  with 
drew  his  amendment,  regarding  the  point  as  conclusively  settled 
I  suppose,  not  only  by  the  uniform  practice  of  the  Government, 
but  by  the  special  declaration  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
who  immediately  afterward  proceeded  on  the  basis  of  that  letter 
to  put  the  bonds  on  the  market.  Mr.  Hooper  stated  the  case 
well  when  he  said  it  was  "  not  deemed  necessary  or  considered 
expedient "  to  insert  coin  payment  in  this  bill ;  "  not  necessary," 
for  the  practice  of  the  Government,  and  the  assurances  of  the 


PAYMENT  OF  THE  PUBLIC  DEBT.          85 

Treasury  Department  in  its  advertisements  in  proposing  for 
loans,  conclusively  settled  the  point ;  and  not  "  considered  expe 
dient,"  because  to  specially  insert  coin  payment  in  all  the  loan 
bills  except  that  of  Feb.  25,  1862,  under  which  $500,000,000 
of  five-twenties  had  been  sold,  might,  in  the  end,  by  the  exclusio 
unius,  give  some  shadow  of  ground  for  the  mischievous  and 
groundless  inference  which  is  now  sought  to  be  drawn. 

We  thus  find  that  the  voice  of  Congress  has  been  uniform 
and  consistent  in  support  of  the  principle  of  paying  the  bonded 
debt  in  coin.  No  vote  in  Congress,  even  implying  the  opposite 
theory,  has  ever  been  given ;  even  the  weighty  influence  and 
conceded  ability  of  the  distinguished  gentleman  from  Pennsyl 
vania  failing  to  carry  with  him  any  support  whatever  when  he 
made  his  surprising  and  unprecedented  change  on  this  question. 
But  the  public  creditors  did  not  rely  solely  on  the  declarations 
of  leading  men  in  Congress  in  regard  to  coin  payment,  nor  did 
they  rest  wholly  on  the  past  practice  and  the  good  faith  of  the 
Government.  They  had,  in  addition  to  both  these  strong 
grounds  of  confidence  and  assurance,  the  more  direct  and  ex 
plicit  guaranty  of  the  Treasury  Department,  the  authorized 
agent  of  the  Government,  speaking  ex  cathedra,  with  the  knowl 
edge  and  assent  of  Congress. 

I  have  already  quoted  Secretary  Chase's  significant  declara 
tions  in  his  letters  arid  his  public  proposals  for  loans,  and  I  have 
now  to  quote  one  of  his  equally  significant  acts.  At  the  close 
of  1862  the  twenty  year  loan  of  1842,  amounting  to  nearly  three 
million  dollars,  fell  due.  Nothing  was  said  in  that  loan  about 
coin  payment,  and  thus  a  grand  opportunity  was  afforded  to 
test  the  theory  of  paper  payment.  Circumstances  all  conspired 
to  favor  such  a  policy  if  it  could  be  honorably  adopted.  Gold 
was  at  a  high  premium,  and  the  Government  was  passing 
through  the  darkest  and  most  doubtful  hours  of  the  whole 
struggle.  Could  there  have  been  even  a  decent  pretext  to  pay 
the  debt  in  paper  currency  the  temptation  was  surely  great 
enough  to  resort  to  it,  if  not  fully  to  justify  it.  But  in  the  face 
of  all  the  adverse  circumstances ;  with  gold  very  high  and  daily 
rising;  with  expenses  enormous  and  daily  increasing;  with 
resources  already  embarrassed  and  daily  growing  more  so,  and 
with  a  military  situation  rendered  well-nigh  desperate  by 


86  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

months  of  almost  unbroken  disaster,  Secretary  Chase  decided 
that  the  faith  of  the  Government  demanded  that  its  funded 
debt,  falling  due  no  matter  when  and  owned  by  no  matter 
whom,  must  be  paid  in  coin.  And  it  was  paid  in  coin  ;  and  no 
voice  but  the  voice  of  approval  was  raised  in  either  branch  of 
Congress.  The  course  of  Secretary  Chase  was  not  only  honor 
able  to  himself  and  the  country,  but  it  was  in  the  highest  de 
gree  wise  merely  from  the  stand-point  of  worldly  wisdom ;  for 
it  created  so  profound  a  confidence  in  the  good  faith  of  our 
Government  that  it  aided  us  incalculably  in  the  negotiation  of 
all  our  great  loans  for  the  war.  When  the  Government  paid 
its  debt  to  the  uttermost  farthing  at  such  a  time  capitalists  at 
once  argued  that  there  never  could  come  a  crisis  when  any 
evasion  of  public  obligation  would  be  resorted  to.  It  has 
been  reserved  for  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  and  the 
gentleman  from  Ohio,  and  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania, 
to  propose  that  our  Government  should  adopt  a  policy  in  the 
sunshine  and  prosperity  of  peace  which  it  scorned  to  resort 
to  in  the  storms  and  adversities  of  war. 

The  course  of  Secretary  Chase  in  guarantying  coin  payment 
on  all  bonds  of  the  United  States  was  followed  by  his  success 
ors,  Secretary  Fessenden  and  Secretary  McCulloch.  The  words 
of  Mr.  Fessenden  are  entitled  to  great  weight  in  the  premises, 
for  he  had  been  chairman  of  Finance  in  the  Senate  during  the 
passage  of  all  the  loan  bills,  had  elaborately  discussed  them  in 
turn,  and  had  as  largely  as  any  single  member  in  either  branch 
of  Congress,  shaped  their  provisions.  His  views  on  the  ques 
tion  at  issue  may  be  briefly  presented  by  the  following  extract 
from  his  official  report  made  to  Congress  in  December,  1864:  — 

"  Though  forced  to  resort  to  the  issue  of  paper  for  the  time,  the  idea  of 
a  specie  basis  was  not  lost  sight  of,  as  the  payment  of  interest  on  long  loans 
in  coin  was  amply  secured.  And  though  in  several  of  the  acts  authorizing 
the  issue  of  bonds  at  long  periods  payment  of  the  principal  at  maturity  in 
coin  is  not  specifically  provided,  the  omission,  it  is  believed,  was  accidental, 
as  there  could  have  been  no  intention  to  make  a  distinction  between  the  different 
classes  of  securities  in  this  regard." 

It  will  be  noted  that  this  declaration  of  Mr.  Fessenden,  made 
in  his  official  report,  was  at  the  very  time  of  the  negotiation  of 
the  five-twenties  of  1864,  and  preceded  the  large  sale  of  seven- 
thirties  which  were  convertible  into  five-twenties.  So  that  in 


PAYMENT  OF  THE  PUBLIC  DEBT.          87 

effect  it  was  an  additional  guaranty  of  coin  payment  on  the 
part  of  the  Government,  operating  at  once  as  the  condition  and 
the  inducement  of  the  loan. 

It  is  well  known  that  Secretary  McCulloch  entertains  pre 
cisely  the  same  opinions  that  were  so  freely  expressed  by 
Messrs.  Chase  and  Fessenden,  and  he  placed  himself  on  record 
on  the  question  by  his  letter  to  L.  P.  Morton  &  Co.  of  New 
York,  wherein  he  says,  under  date  of  Nov.  15,  1866 :  — 

"  I  regard,  as  did  also  my  predecessors,  all  bonds  of  the  United  States  as 
payable  in  coin.  The  bonds  which  have  matured  since  the  suspension  of 
specie  payments  have  been  so  paid,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  same  will 
be  true  with  all  others.  This  being,  as  I  understand  it  to  be,  the  established 
policy  of  the  Government,  the  five-twenty  bonds  of  1862  will  either  be 
called  in  at  the  expiration  of  five  years  from  their  date  and  paid  in  coin, 
or  be  permitted  to  run  until  the  Government  is  prepared  to  pay  them  in 
coin." 

In  view  of  the  uniform  declarations  of  the  Treasury  Depart 
ment,  made  through  official  reports,  through  public  proposals 
for  loans,  and  through  personal  letters  of  assurance,  all  guaran 
tying  coin  payment  of  the  five-twenty  bonds,  I  submit  that  the 
Government  is  bound  thereto  even  if  there  were  no  other  obli 
gation  expressed  or  implied.  These  official  and  unofficial  pro 
mulgations  from  the  Treasury  Department  were  made  with  the 
full  knowledge  of  Congress,  and  without  the  slightest  expression 
of  dissent  on  the  part  of  that  body.  Had  Congress  not  be 
lieved  or  intended  that  the  five-twenty  bonds  were  to  be  paid 
in  coin  the  Secretary  should  not  have  been  allowed  with  its 
evident  assent  so  to  advertise  ;  and  for  Congress,  after  this 
significant  permission  and  warrant  to  step  forward  at  this  late 
day  and  declare  itself  not  bound  by  the  conditions  published 
by  the  Secretary  is  simply  to  place  the  United  States  Govern 
ment  in  the  position  of  a  man  playing  a  "  confidence  game  " 
in  which  the  Treasury  Department  and  Congress  are  the  con 
federate  knaves,  and  the  whole  mass  of  bondholders  the  unfor 
tunate  victims. 

But  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  suppose,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
we  admit  that  the  Government  may  fairly  and  legally  pay  the 
five-twenty  bonds  in  paper  currency,  what  then?  I  ask  the 
gentleman  from  Massachusetts  to  tell  us,  what  then?  It  is 
easy,  I  know,  to  issue  as  many  greenbacks  as  will  pay  the 


88  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

maturing  bonds,  regardless  of  the  effect  upon  the  inflation  of 
prices  and  the  general  derangement  of  business.  Five  hundred 
millions  of  the  five-twenties  are  now  payable,  and  according  to 
the  mode  suggested  all  we  have  to  do  is  to  set  the  printing- 
presses  in  motion,  and  "so  long  as  rags  and  lampblack  hold 
out "  we  need  have  no  embarrassment  about  paying  our  national 
debt.  But  the  ugly  question  recurs,  What  are  you  going  to  do 
with  the  greenbacks  thus  put  afloat?  Five  hundred  millions 
this  year,  and  eleven  hundred  millions  more  on  this  theory  of 
payment  by  the  year  1872,  so  that  within  the  period  of  four  or 
five  years  we  would  have  added  to  our  paper  money  the  trifling 
inflation  of  $1,600,000,000. 

Payment  of  the  five-twenty  bonds  in  paper  currency  involves, 
therefore,  a  limitless  issue  of  greenbacks,  with  attendant  evils  of 
great  magnitude.  The  worst  evil  of  the  whole  is  the  delusion 
which  calls  this  a  payment  at  all.  It  is  no  payment  in  any 
proper  sense,  for  it  neither  gives  the  creditor  what  he  is  entitled 
to,  nor  does  it  release  the  debtor  from  subsequent  responsibility. 
You  may  get  rid  of  the  five-twenty  by  issuing  the  greenback, 
but  how  will  you  get  rid  of  the  greenback  except  by  paying 
coin  ?  The  only  escape  from  ultimate  payment  of  coin  is  to  de 
clare  that  as  a  nation  we  permanently  and  finally  renounce  all 
idea  of  ever  attaining  a  specie  standard;  that  we  launch  our 
selves  upon  an  ocean  of  paper  money,  without  shore  or  sound 
ing,  with  no  rudder  to  guide  us  and  no  compass  to  steer  by. 
This  is  precisely  what  is  involved  if  we  adopt  this  mischiev- 
vous  suggestion  of  "a  new  way  to  pay  old  debts."  Our  fate  in 
attempting  such  a  course  may  be  easily  read  in  the  history  of 
similar  follies  both  in  Europe  and  in  our  own  country.  Pros 
tration  of  credit,  financial  disaster,  wide-spread  distress  among 
all  classes  of  the  community,  would  form  the  closing  scenes  in 
our  career  of  gratuitous  folly  and  national  dishonor.  From 
such  an  abyss  of  sorrow  and  humiliation  it  would  be  a  painful 
and  toilsome  effort  to  regain  as  sound  a  position  in  our  finances 
as  we  are  asked  voluntarily  to  abandon  to-day. 


NOT  A  PROPER  SOURCE  OF  REVENUE.        89 


TAXATION    OF    UNITED    STATES    BONDS. 


[Speech  of  Mr.  Elaine  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  June  23,  1868,  the 
House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  Mr.  Cullom  of  Illinois  in  the  Chair.  ] 

MR.  CHAIRMAN,  —  The  fact  that  the  bonds  of  the  United 
States  are  exempt  from  State  and  municipal  taxation  has  cre 
ated  discontent  among  the  people,  —  the  belief  prevailing  quite 
generally  that  if  this  exemption  could  be  removed  the  local 
burdens  of  the  tax-payer  would  be  immediately  and  essentially 
lightened.  Many  persons  assert  this  belief  from  a  spirit  of 
mischievous  demagogism,  and  many  do  so  from  sincere  con 
viction.  To  the  latter  class  I  beg  to  submit  some  facts  and 
suggestions  which  may  modify  if  not  entirely  change  their 
conclusions. 

The  total  coin-bearing  debt  of  the  United  States,  the  conver 
sion  of  seven-thirties  being  now  practically  completed,  amounts 
to  a  little  more  than  twenty-one  hundred  million  dollars ;  of 
this  large  amount,  some  two  hundred  millions  draw  but  five  per 
cent  interest,  a  rate  not  sufficiently  high  in  the  present  condi 
tion  of  the  money  market  to  provoke  hostility  or  suggest  the 
especial  necessity  of  taxation.  Indeed  it  may  be  safely  said 
that  there  never  has  been  any  popular  dissatisfaction  with  re 
gard  to  the  non-taxation  of  the  five  per  cents,  it  being  agreed 
by  common  consent  that  such  a  rate  of  interest  was  not 
unreasonable  on  a  loan  negotiated  at  such  a  time. 

The  agitation  may,  therefore,  be  regarded  as  substantially 
confined  to  the  six  per  cent  coin-bearing  bonds,  which  amount 
to  nineteen  hundred  millions  of  dollars.  Many  people  honestly 
but  thoughtlessly  believe  that  if  this  class  of  bonds  could  be 
taxed  by  local  authority  the  whole  volume  represented  by  them 
would  at  once  be  added  to  the  lists  of  the  assessor.  It  is  my 
purpose  to  show  that  this  conclusion  is  totally  unfounded,  and 


90  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

that  if  the  right  of  local  taxation  existed  in  its  amplest  extent, 
but  a  minor  fraction  of  the  bonds  could  by  any  possibility  be 
subjected  to  larger  local  tax  than  they  already  pay. 

The  entire  amount  of  these  bonds,  as  I  have  stated,  is  nine 
teen  hundred  million  dollars ;  and  of  this  total,  by  the  best  and 
most  careful  estimates  attainable,  at  least  six  hundred  and  fifty 
millions  are  now  held  in  Europe.  This  amount  could  not, 
therefore,  be  reached  by  any  system  of  local  taxation,  however 
searching.  Deducting  the  amount  thus  held  abroad,  we  find 
the  amount  held  at  home  is  reduced  to  twelve  hundred  and 
fifty  million  dollars. 

But  of  this  twelve  hundred  and  fifty  millions  more  than  one- 
third,  or  to  speak  with  accuracy,  about  four  hundred  and 
twenty-five  millions,  are  held  by  the  national  banks,  and  no 
form  of  property  in  the  United  States  pays  so  large  a  tax,  both 
local  and  general,  as  these  banks.  The  stock,  the  depositories, 
and  the  deposits  which  these  four  hundred  and  twenty-five 
millions  of  bonds  represent  pay  full  local  tax  at  the  highest  rate, 
besides  a  national  tax  averaging  about  two  and  a  half  per  cent. 
Were  the  power  of  local  taxation  made  specific  on  the  bonds 
held  by  the  national  banks,  they  could  not  yield  a  dollar  more 
than  is  now  realized.  It  thus  follows  that  the  twelve  hundred 
and  fifty  millions  of  bonds  in  this  country,  presumptively  escap 
ing  local  taxation,  must  be  reduced  by  the  amount  represented 
by  the  banks,  and  hence  we  find  the  aggregate  falls  to  eight 
hundred  and  twenty-five  millions. 

The  reduction,  however,  goes  still  farther,  for  it  must  be 
remembered  that  the  savings  banks  have  invested  their  deposits 
in  these  bonds  to  the  amount  of  one  hundred  and  seventy-five 
millions.  In  some  States  by  local  law  the  deposits  of  savings 
banks  are  exempt  from  taxation,  as  an  incentive  to  thrift  and 
economy.  In  other  States,  where  these  deposits  are  taxed,  as 
in  Connecticut,  it  has  been  held  by  judicial  decision  that  the 
fact  of  their  investment  in  United  States  bonds  does  not  exempt 
them  from  taxation.  Hence  these  one  hundred  and  seventy- 
five  millions,  thus  invested  in  savings-bank  deposits,  are  either 
locally  taxable,  or,  if  exempt,  it  is  by  State  law  and  not  by 
virtue  of  the  general  exemption  of  the  bonds.  It  thus  follows 
that  the  eight  hundred  and  twenty-five  millions  must  be  further 


TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS.  91 

reduced  by  this  sum  of  one  hundred  and  seventy-five  millions, 
leaving  but  six  hundred  and  fifty  millions  not  already  included 
within  the  scope  of  local  taxation. 

But  there  is  a  still  further  reduction  of  thirty  millions  of 
bonds  held  by  the  life  insurance  companies  on  precisely  the  same 
terms  as  the  deposits  of  savings  banks  —  that  is,  either  taxed 
locally,  or,  if  exempt,  deriving  the  exemption  from  the  local 
law.  The  surplus  earnings  and  reserves  of  these  life  insurance 
companies  invested  to  the  extent  of  thirty  millions  in  United 
States  bonds  are  as  open  to  taxation  when  invested  in  that 
form  as  though  they  were  held  in  State  or  railroad  securities. 
Deducting  these  thirty  millions  we  find  the  untaxed  bonds 
reduced  to  six  hundred  and  twenty  millions. 

There  is  still  another  large  reduction ;  for  the  fire  and  marine 
insurance  companies,  the  annuity  and  trust  companies  and 
other  corporations  which  cannot  readily  be  classed,  hold  in 
the  aggregate  over  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  millions  of 
bonds ;  and  these  are  held  on  precisely  the  same  basis  as  those 
held  by  the  savings  bank  and  the  life  insurance  companies. 
These  numerous  corporations  have  their  capital  stock,  their  re 
serves  and  their  surplus  earnings  invested  in  Government  bonds 
to  the  extent  named,  and  they  are  in  this  form  as  open  to  taxa 
tion  and  are  actually  taxed  as  much  as  though  they  were  in 
vested  in  any  other  form  of  security.  Making  the  deduction  of 
this  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  millions  we  find  remaining 
but  four  hundred  and  ninety-five  millions  of  the  six  per  cent 
gold-bearing  bonds  that  are  not  already  practically  subjected  to 
local  taxation.  Allowing  for  the  possibility  that  one  hundred 
millions  of  the  five  per  cents  are  held  instead  of  six  per  cents 
in  all  the  channels  of  investment  I  have  named,  and  it  follows 
that  at  the  outside  figure  there  are  to-day  in  the  whole  country 
less  than  six  hundred  millions  of  Government  sixes,  not  fully 
subjected  to  the  power  of  local  taxation.  And  these  six  hun 
dred  millions  are  rapidly  growing  less  as  the  various  corporate 
institutions  I  have  named  continue  to  invest  their  funds  in  the 
bonds.  These  institutions  desire  a  security  that  is  of  steady 
value,  not  liable  to  fluctuation,  and  at  all  times  convertible  into 
money ;  and  hence  they  seek  Government  bonds  in  preference 
to  any  other  form  of  investment.  The  high  premium  on  the 


92  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

bonds  induces  individuals  to  part  with  them,  and  hence  they 
are  readily  transferred  to  corporate  ownership,  where  they 
become  in  effect  at  once  subject  to  local  taxation  and  are  no 
longer  obnoxious  to  the  charge  of  evading  or  escaping  their 
just  share  of  municipal  burden.  In  the  hands  of  individuals 
the  bonds  may  be  concealed,  but  in  the  possession  of  corpora 
tions  concealment  is  necessarily  impossible. 

If  these  statistical  statements  needed  any  verification  it  would 
be  supplied  by  an  examination  of  the  income  returns  recently 
made  under  oath  and  published  in  all  the  large  cities  of  the 
country,  disclosing  the  fact  that  the  amount  of  bonds  held  by 
the  wealthy  men  of  the  country  has  been  continually  growing 
less,  just  as  they  have  been  absorbed  by  foreign  purchase  and 
by  corporate  investment.  The  correctness  of  these  income 
returns  in  reference  to  the  investment  in  bonds  will  be  accepted 
even  by  the  incredulous  and  the  uncharitable,  when  it  is  re 
membered  that  the  interest  of  those  making  them  was  to  exag 
gerate  rather  than  depreciate  the  respective  amounts  of  bonds 
held  by  them.  Instead,  then,  of  nineteen  hundred  millions  of 
these  bonds  running  free  of  taxation,  it  is  clear  that  less  than 
six  hundred  millions  are  open  to  that  charge  —  less  than  one- 
third  of  the  whole  amount.  The  remainder,  largely  more  than 
two-thirds  of  the  whole,  are  either  held  abroad,  where  no  local 
taxation  can  reach  them,  or  they  are  held  at  home  in  such  form 
as  subjects  them  to  local  taxation. 

Let  us  suppose  that  we  were  now  in  possession  of  the  full 
power  to  tax  by  local  authority  these  six  hundred  millions 
of  bonds  presumptively  owned  by  individuals !  Would  we 
realize  anything  from  it?  On  its  face  the  prospect  might  be 
fair  and  inviting,  but  in  practice  it  would  assuredly  prove  de 
lusive  and  deceptive.  The  trouble  would  be  that  the  holders 
of  the  bonds  could  not  be  found.  No  form  of  property  is  so 
easily  concealed,  none  so  readily  transferred  back  and  forth, 
none  so  difficult  to  trace  to  actual  ownership.  We  have  hun 
dreds  of  millions  of  State  bonds,  city  bonds,  and  railroad  securi 
ties  in  this  country,  and  yet  every  one  knows  that  it  is  only 
an  infinitesimal  proportion  of  this  vast  investment  that  is  ever 
represented  on  the  books  of  assessors  and  tax-collectors.  As  a 
pertinent  illustration,  I  might  cite  the  case  of  the  bonds  of  my 


TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS.  93 

own  State,  of  which  there  are  over  five  millions  in  existence 
to-day,  largely  held  as  a  favorite  investment  by  the  citizens  of 
Maine.  Of  this  whole  sum  I  am  safe  in  saying  that  scarcely  a 
dollar  is  found  on  the  lists  of  any  assessor  in  the  State. 

The  facility  for  concealing  ownership  in  national  bonds  is 
far  greater  than  in  any  other  form  of  security,  and  the  propor 
tion  in  the  hands  of  individuals  that  would  escape  the  assess 
ment  of  local  taxes  may  be  inferred  with  reasonable  certainty 
from  the  analogies  I  have  suggested,  which  are  familiar  to 
all  who  have  given  the  least  attention  to  the  subject.  Indeed, 
I  venture  to  assert  with  confidence  that  if  the  power  of  local 
taxation  of  these  bonds  were  fully  accorded  to-day,  the  tax- 
lists  of  our  cities  and  towns  would  not  be  increased  on  an  aver 
age  one  per  cent.  Many  of  those  who  to-day  may  be  ambitious 
to  parade  their  bonds  when  protected  by  what  is  deemed  an 
offensive  exemption,  would  suddenly  have  no  bonds  when  the 
power  of  taxation  applied  to  them.  Indeed,  the  utter  failure  to 
realize  any  thing  from  this  source,  if  the  power  to  test  it  were 
granted,  would  in  the  end  create  more  dissatisfaction  than  that 
exemption,  which,  in  theory,  is  offensive,  but  in  practice  is 
absolutely  of  no  consequence  whatever. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  "  Why  are  not  the  bonds  taxed  by 
national  authority?"  Granted,  it  will  be  urged,  that  the  power 
of  local  taxation  would  be  nugatory  and  valueless,  "  that  affords 
all  the  stronger  reason  for  taxing  the  bonds  by  direct  Congres 
sional  enactment."  In  answer  to  this  I  have  only  to  say  that 
a  tax  levied  directly  upon  the  coupon  is  simply  an  abatement 
of  interest,  and  that  result  can  be  reached  in  a  better  and  more 
satisfactory  and  more  honorable  way.  The  determination  mani 
fested  by  this  Congress  and  by  the  great  Republican  convention 
at  Chicago  to  maintain  the  national  faith,  has  already  worked  a 
large  appreciation  in  the  value  of  the  bonds,  and  with  the 
strengthening  of  our  credit,  which  results  from  an  honest  policy, 
we  shall  speedily  be  able  to  fund  our  debt  on  a  lower  scale  of 
interest,  running  down  to  five,  four  and  a  half,  and  ultimately 
to  four  per  cent  per  annum.  Should  we  proceed,  however,  in 
violation  of  good  faith  and  of  the  uniform  practice  of  civilized 
nations,  to  hold  back  part  of  the  stipulated  interest  instead  of 
effecting  an  honorable  exchange  of  bonds  to  the  mutual  advan- 


94  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

tage  of  the  Government  and  the  public  creditor,  we  should 
only  punish  ourselves,  produce  calamitous  results  in  the  busi 
ness  world,  and  permanently  injure  our  national  fame. 

To  withhold  one  per  cent  of  the  interest  under  the  plea  of  a 
national  tax  this  year  might  be  followed  by  withholding  two  per 
cent  next  year  and  three  per  cent  the  year  ensuing.  To  enter 
upon  such  a  policy  would  produce  alarm  at  home  and  distrust 
abroad,  for  every  man  holding  a  bond  would  be  forced  to  count 
his  rate  of  interest  not  on  what  was  stipulated  in  the  contract, 
but  on  what  might  be  the  will  and  caprice  of  Congress  in  its 
annual  withholding  of  a  portion  of  the  interest  under  the  pre 
tense  of  a  tax.  Under  such  a  policy  our  bonds  would  be  re 
turned  upon  us  from  Europe  with  panic-like  rapidity,  and  the 
drain  upon  our  specie  resources  would  produce  an  immediate 
and  disastrous  crisis  in  monetary  circles.  If  even  one-half  of  our 
bonds  held  in  Europe  were  suddenly  sent  home  it  would  drain 
us  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  specie,  and  the  financial 
distress  throughout  the  land  would-  be  beyond  the  power  of 
calculation  or  imagination.  And  yet  that  is  the  precise  result 
involved  if  we  should  follow  the  policy  advocated  by  those  who 
urge  us  to  tax  the  coupon  and  withhold  one  or  two  per  cent  of 
the  interest.  Let  us  reject  such  counsels,  and  adhere  to  tke 
steady,  straightforward  course  dictated  alike  by  good  policy 
and  good  faith.  Let  us  never  forget  that  in  the  language  of 
the  Chicago  platform,  "  the  best  policy  to  diminish  our  burden 
of  debt  is  to  so  improve  our  credit  that  capitalists  will  seek 
to  loan  us  money  at  lower  rates  of  interest  than  we  now  pay, 
and  must  continue  to  pay  so  long  as  repudiation,  either  partial 
or  total,  open  or  covert,  is  threatened  or  suspected." 


POLITICAL  CAMPAIGN  OF   1868.  95 


GRANT    AND    SEYMOUR    COMPARED. 


[A  speech  delivered  by  Mr.  Blaine  at  a  Republican  meeting  in  Augusta, 
Maine,  July  11,  1868.] 

FELLOW-CITIZENS,  — If  now,  at  the  beginning  of  the  National 
campaign,  leaving  out  of  sight  for  the  moment  all  the  politi 
cal  issues  between  the  two  parties,  you  were  simply  called 
upon  to  select  an  officer  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  United 
States,  and  were,  moreover,  compelled  to  make  your  selection 
between  the  two  men  now  most  prominently  before  the  public, 
which  would  you  take,  —  General  Grant,  or  Governor  Sey 
mour  ?  I  have  put  in  the  form  of  an  hypothesis  that  which  is 
indeed  the  actual  condition  of  the  case  ;  because  every  citizen 
of  the  United  States,  whatever  considerations  may  govern  his 
vote,  will  really  be  compelled  to  choose  between  the  two  men  I 
have  named. 

If  I  were  empowered  to  answer  for  you,  I  should  say  that  a 
man  more  highly  gifted  with  the  executive  talent  than  Ulysses 
S.  Grant  could  not  be  found  within  the  limits  of  the  United 
States.  He  is  silent,  prompt,  punctual  and  decisive,  with  clear 
and  quick  judgment,  without  irritability  of  temper,  with  won 
derful  self-command.  He  is  not  under  the  sway  of  imagina 
tion,  is  not  influenced  by  sentiment,  sees  things  as  a  realist, 
precisely  as  they  are.  He  is  not  moved  by  any  considera 
tion  outside  of  the  line  of  plain  matter  of  duty.  He  has  no 
partisan  prejudices,  has  grown  up  without  party  attachment, 
and  would  administer  the  Government  without  the  slightest 
danger  of  undue  influence  from  party  consideration.  If  to  be  a 
politician  is,  as  many  persons  think,  a  disability  for  a  President, 
you  can  certainly  feel  assured  that  General  Grant  has  no  touch 
or  taint  of  that  kind. 

On  the  other  hand,  I  should  say  of  Horatio  Seymour,  that, 


96  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

while  an  accomplished  politician,  he  is  markedly  deficient  in 
the  executive  talent.  He  is  an  irresolute,  if  not  timid,  man, 
who  is  disposed  to  balance  public  and  partisan  considerations 
so  nicely  that  he  rarely  reaches  an  absolute  conclusion,  and 
certainly  never  reaches  one  in  time  for  prompt  action.  In  the 
struggle  between  the  temptations  of  party  obligation  and  of  con 
science,  he  is  always  in  doubt,  too  often  in  danger.  He  is,  at 
the  same  time,  a  man  of  unquestioned  ability,  apparently  frank, 
and  perhaps  meaning  to  be  so  even  when  he  fails  in  the  mo 
ment  of  trial  to  maintain  and  exhibit  that  manly  quality.  He 
is  personally  a  most  amiable  and  agreeable  gentleman ;  and  his 
strong  hold  upon  the  Democratic  party  of  New  York,  and 
thence  upon  the  Democratic  party  of  the  Nation,  is  due  to  the 
charm  of  his  manners  as  much  as  to  his  ability,  which  friend 
and  foe  acknowledge  to  be  of  a  high  order. 

From  these  brief  outlines  and  characteristics,  if  I  have  stated 
them  correctly,  it  will  be  seen  that  in  respect  to  executive  abil 
ity  there  is  no  ground  for  comparison,  but  only  for  contrast, 
between  the  two  men.  The  one  is  gifted  in  the  highest  degree 
with  the  quality  we  are  discussing:  the  other  is  so  deficient 
that  we  cannot  in  fairness  speak  of  his  possessing  it  at  all. 
The  one  has  shown  his  great  powers  of  command  in  the  most 
critical  exigencies  in  which  a  man  can  be  placed :  the  other 
was  tried  only  once  by  a  condition  of  affairs  which  demanded 
instant  decision  and  promptness  of  action,  and  he  failed.  How 
long,  if  I  may  interpolate  the  question,  do  you  suppose  a 
blind,  ignorant,  unled  mob  could  have  held  control  of  the 
American  metropolis,  if  General  Grant  had  been  Governor  of 
New  York  ? 

The  contrast  between  General  Grant  and  Governor  Seymour 
grows  more  marked  the  longer  we  look  at  the  record  of  each. 
In  fact,  it  is  a  striking  illustration  of  the  good  temper  and  good 
discipline  of  our  people,  and  of  the  mutual  respect  of  political 
parties,  that  we  are  so  enlisted  in  the  Presidential  contest  as 
to  treat  each  candidate  with  the  same  courtesy  in  the  arena 
of  public  discussion.  Indeed,  we  seem  to  be  in  danger  of 
forgetting  that  the  Republican  candidate  is  none  other  than  the 
great  commander  of  the  Union  armies  which  subdued  the  re 
bellion,  and  thereby  restored  the  Union ;  and  we  seem  equally 


GRANT  AND  SEYMOUR  COMPARED.         97 

in  danger  of  not  remembering  that  the  Democratic  candidate  is 
none  other  than  that  Governor  of  New  York  who  was  a  stum 
bling-block  to  President  Lincoln  at  the  very  crisis  of  the  civil 
struggle,  and  who,  when  the  rebels  were  pushed  to  the  last 
point  of  resistance,  joined  in  a  National  Convention  of  the 
Democratic  party,  and  demanded  that  the  war  should  cease 
and  that  the  rebels  should  be  invited  to  a  conference,  while 
their  armies  lay  waiting  the  result.  It  certainly  should  stir 
the  blood  of  men  who  were  heartily  loyal  to  the  Government 
through  the  civil  war,  who  rejoiced  at  every  Union  victory,  and 
were  cast  down  by  every  rebel  success,  to  see  the  candidacy  of 
General  Grant  opposed  by  the  candidacy  of  Horatio  Seymour, 
who,  if  not  himself  disloyal  to  the  Government,  excited  disloy 
alty  in  others,  and  whose  whole  course,  during  the  four  years 
of  strife,  increased  the  burden  placed  upon  the  National  Gov 
ernment,  and  inspired  the  Confederacy  to  greater  vigor  by 
the  dissatisfaction  with  the  war  which  his  leadership  created 
throughout  the  North. 

To  go  a  little  farther  into  an  analysis  of  the  respective  char 
acters  of  these  two  men,  let  me  say  that  Governor  Seymour 
possesses  a  talent  for  political  misrepresentation  beyond  that, 
I  think,  of  any  other  public  man  in  the  United  States.  I  do 
not  mean  misrepresentation  of  a  broad  and  vulgar  type,  under 
laid  and  overlaid  with  falsehood,  but  misrepresentation  by  in 
ference,  or  by  the  suggestion  of  a  fact  which,  while  a  fact, 
leaves  an  utterly  misleading  impression  upon  the  mind  of  the 
hearer.  .1  can,  perhaps,  .better  illustrate  this  habit  of  Governor 
Seymour's  mind  by  an  incident,  than  by  merely  abstract  ref 
erence  to  it.  On  the  25th  of  June,  a  week  or  more  preceding 
the  late  Democratic  National  Convention,  Governor  Seymour 
made  a  somewhat  notable  speech  at  a  meeting  of  his  partisans  in 
Cooper  Institute.  In  assailing  the  administration  of  the  Gov 
ernment  by  Republicans,  he  made  this  statement  —  and  I  give 
it  in  his  exact  language,  in  order  that  I  may  not,  myself,  be  in 
any  degree  subject  to  the  same  charge  which  I  have  brought 
against  Mr.  Seymour :  — 

"Since  the  war  closed,  in  1865.  the  Government  has  spent,  in  addition  to 
its  payments  on  the  principal  or  interest  of  the  public  debt,  more  than  one 
thousand  millions  of  dollars.  Of  this  sum  there  has  been  nearly  eight  nun- 


98  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

dred  millions  spent  on  the  army  and  the  navy,  and  for  military  purposes. 
This  is  nearly  one-third  of  the  National  debt.  This  was  spent  in  time  of 
peace." 

The  fact  which  Governor  Seymour  in  this  statement  evidently 
sought  to  impress  upon  his  hearers  was,  that  in  a  time  of  pro 
found  peace  the  military  and  naval  expenses  of  the  Government, 
under  Republican  rule,  were  at  the  rate  of  some  two  hundred 
and  seventy  millions  per  annum.  He  did  not  in  explicit  terms 
say  two  hundred  and  seventy  millions  a  year,  but  he  said  eight 
hundred  millions  for  three  years,  as  though  the  expenditure 
was  spread  over  the  whole  period. 

What  now  are  the  facts  of  the  case  ?  When  the  war  closed 
in  April,  1865,  —  and  I  stated  these  facts  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  only  two  days  after  Governor  Seymour's 
speech,  —  the  armies  of  the  Union  bore  on  their  rolls  the  names 
of  nearly  a  million  of  men,  and  our  navy,  in  its  widely  extended 
duty  of  blockading  three  thousand  miles  of  coast,  had  nearly 
five  hundred  vessels  in  service,  with,  of  course,  a  great  many 
thousand  sailors  on  board.  The  immediate  result  of  National 
victory  on  land  and  sea  was  the  mustering  out  of  these  count 
less  hosts  of  men.  Many  months  of  pay  were  due  to  more  than 
half  the  army ;  the  bounty,  to  which  those  who  served  during 
the  .war  were  entitled,  was  due  to  all,  and  must  now  be  paid. 
The  pay  of  the  sailors  was  as  much  in  arrears  as  the  pay  of  the 
soldiers,  and,  besides,  in  settling,  they  were  entitled  to  receive 
millions  of  prize  money  which  they  had  honestly  earned.  The 
enormous  amount  required  for  these  closing  settlements  was 
readily  provided,  because  the  Government  had  unlimited  credit 
in  its  hour  of  victory.  I  visited  the  Treasury  Department, 
in  order  to  get  the  material  to  answer  Governor  Seymour, 
and  I  received  an  official  statement  showing  that  the  disburse 
ments  on  account  of  the  army  and  navy  for  the  one  hundred 
and  seventy-four  days  following  General  Grant's  closing  victory 
over  Lee,  amounted  to  six  hundred  and  twenty-five  millions  of 
dollars.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  more  than  three-fourths 
of  the  eight  hundred  millions  of  dollars  of  war  and  navy  ex 
penses,  which  Governor  Seymour  says  have  been  paid  by  the 
Government  within  the  last  three  years,  were  really  disbursed 
in  what  might  be  called  a  lump  sum  at  the  close  of  hostilities, 


GRANT  AND  SEYMOUR  COMPARED.  99 

when  we  settled  with  the  soldiers  and  sailors,  and  paid  them  in 
ready  cash  for  the  service  in  which  they  had  so  honorably  and 
so  faithfully  acquitted  themselves. 

Of  this  great  sum  of  six  hundred  and  twenty-five  millions  of 
dollars,  ninety-five  millions  were  paid  from  the  current  revenues 
of  the  Government,  and  the  loyal  people  advanced  five  hundred 
and  thirty  millions  by  subscribing  that  amount  to  the  seven- 
thirty  loan ;  and  yet  this  transaction  is  deliberately  misrepre 
sented  by  Governor  Seymour,  in  making  it  appear  that  the 
entire  outlay  was  the  ordinary  disbursement  for  War  and  Navy 
in  a  time  of  peace.  With  the  six  hundred  and  twenty-five 
millions  deducted,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  expenses  of  War  and 
of  Navy,  for  these  last  three  years,  have  been  but  one  hundred 
and  seventy-five  millions,  or  a  little  more  than  fifty-eight  mil 
lions  per  annum,  for  both  branches  of  the  National  defense. 

Thus  reduced,  Governor  Seymour's  figures  approximate  the 
truth,  and  they  exhibit  a  careful  economy  on  the  part  of  the 
Government.  Go  back  ten  years,  to  Mr.  Buchanan's  Admin 
istration,  and  with  an  army  far  less  than  has  been  maintained 
for  safety  since  the  close  of  the  war,  with  a  navy  not  nearly  so 
large  as  that  now  in  commission,  the  two  branches  of  the  service 
cost  forty  millions  of  dollars.  Taking  the  difference  in  the 
amount  of  force,  and  the  fact  that  the  expenditures  of  1858 
were  in  coin,  while  those  of  the  present  time  are  in  paper, 
considerably  depreciated,  every  candid  man  will  see  that  the 
Government  outlays  for  the  past  three  years  have  been  on 
a  more  economic  scale  than  were  maintained  during  the  last 
Democratic  Administration  that  was  in  power. 

I  have  gone  into  this  detail  for  the  purpose,  not  merely  of 
stopping  an  injurious  mis-statement  as  to  Government  expendi 
ture,  but  especially  to  illustrate  the  skillful  way  in  which 
Governor  Seymour  conveys  a  charge  that  is  inherently  and 
intrinsically  untrue.  It  was  Prince  Talleyrand,  I  think,  who, 
in  speaking  of  two  distinguished  European  diplomatists,  said 
that  "  the  one  lies,  but  never  deceives  ;  while  the  other  deceives, 
but  never  lies."  I  think  that  if  Governor  Seymour  should 
change  his  public  relations  from  an  accomplished  politician  to 
become,  as  I  have  no  doubt  he  would,  a  most  skillful  diploma 
tist,  he  would  be  cousin-german  to  the  second  type  referred  to 


100  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

by  Talleyrand.  I  would  match  him  against  the  whole  school  of 
diplomacy  in  Europe,  for  deceiving  without  actually  stating 
a  falsehood,  —  compounding  with  his  conscience  by  accuracy  of 
verbal  statement,  and  charging  whatever  erroneous  impression 
was  created,  not  to  his  own  lack  of  candor,  but  to  the  dullness 
and  lack  of  information  on  the  part  of  those  who  could  so 
easily  be  made  the  victims  of  a  polite  misunderstanding. 

Let  me  ask  now,  fellow-citizens,  if  it  would  not  read  very 
strangely  in  history,  should  this  patriotic  American  people,  on 
the  occasion  of  the  first  Presidential  election  after  they  had 
escaped  the  danger  of  war  and  restored  the  integrity  and 
strength  of  the  Government,  deny  the  highest  honor  of  the 
Republic  to  the  chief  military  leader  who  conquered  the  rebel 
lion,  and  bestow  it  upon  the  man  the  aggregate  of  whose  efforts 
and  influence  was  steadily  and  heavily  against  the  Administra 
tion  charged  with  the  maintenance  of  the  Union  ?  I  think  no 
one  will  deny,  when  the  time  comes  that  we  may  coolly  look 
back  upon  the  conduct  of  Governor  Seymour  while  he  was  in 
the  executive  chair  of  New  York,  or  upon  his  course  as  a 
leader  of  the  Democratic  party,  taking  active  part  in  the 
National  Convention  of  1864,  that  his  influence  was  hurtful  to 
the  Union  cause.  Mr.  Lincoln  thought  so,  and  Mr.  Stanton 
thought  so,  and  all  the  leading  generals  in  the  field  thought 
so.  As  Cromwel],  in  his  agony,  asked  that  the  Lord  might 
deliver  him  from  Sir  Harry  Vane,  so  President  Lincoln  must 
have  often  cried,  in  his  trouble,  to  be  delivered  from  Horatio 
Seymour.  The  spirit  of  Mr.  Seymour's  action,  even  when  the 
form  was  in  compliance  with  patriotic  duty,  was  such  as  to 
incite  a  spirit  of  resistance  to  the  necessary  policy  of  the 
National  Administration. 

The  personal  aspects  of  this  contest  are  so  striking,  and 
withal  so  important,  that  I  make  no  apology  or  explanation  for 
putting  the  considerations  which  grow  out  of  them  in  the  fore 
front  of  the  argument.  The  largest  issue  after  all  is  that  on 
one  side  General  Grant  is  the  candidate,  and  on  the  other 
Governor  Seymour  is  the  candidate.  I  do  not  recall  any  Presi 
dential  contest  in  which  the  personality  of  the  two  candidates 
entered  so  largely  into  the  struggle,  and  embodied  in  fact  so 
much  of  the  actual  issue  at  stake.  All  the  questions  that  grow 


GRANT  AND  SEYMOUR  COMPARED.  101 

out  of  the  war,  all  the  patriotic  and  inspiring  issues,  all  the 
antagonisms  and  hatreds,  are  reproduced  and  represented  in 
these  two  men ;  and  I  am  sure  that  the  contest  will,  in  a  very 
remarkable  degree,  proceed,  not  upon  mere  personal  differences 
between  the  two,  but  on  the  public  questions  which  these  per 
sonal  differences  actually  stand  for. 

There  is  another  feature  in  the  Democratic  position  which 
serves  to  give  point  and  emphasis  to  the  meaning  of  their  plat 
form.  Ordinarily  the  nomination  of  a  Vice-President  is  not  of 
special  significance,  but  the  Democratic  Convention  this  year 
have  made  their  selection  of  that  candidate  full  of  meaning, 
bristling,  indeed,  with  dangerous  import.  General  Frank  Blair, 
who  has  many  things  in  his  past  record  to  commend  him  to 
patriotic  favor,  has  drifted,  with  the  Blair  tendency,  back  into 
the  Democratic  party.  It  is  impossible,  or  rather  has  been 
impossible,  for  any  one  of  the  Blairs  —  the  father  or  either  of 
the  two  sons  —  to  be  moderate  on  any  political  issue ;  and  so, 
at  this  time,  General  Frank  Blair,  having  been  fully  re-admitted 
to  the  Democratic  ranks,  signalizes  his  change  by  out-Heroding 
Herod,  running  ahead  of  the  extremists  of  the  South.  He  de 
mands  that  the  Reconstruction  laws  shall  simply  be  overturned 
by  violence.  He  does  not  propose  to  wait  for  their  repeal  by 
Congress,  or  for  their  unconstitutionality  to  be  declared  by  the 
Supreme  Court,  but  simply  that  the  President  shall  declare  all 
the  Acts  to  be  null  and  void,  —  I  am  quoting  his  own  words,  — 
and  compel  the  army  to  dispossess  the  carpet-bag  State  govern 
ments,  allow  the  white  people  to  re-organize  their  own  govern 
ments  and  elect  senators  and  representatives.  Mr.  Blair  has 
certainly  made  the  largest  bid  for  the  support  of  Southern  rebel- 
dom  that  any  Democrat  has  yet  offered.  He  proposes  to  revolu 
tionize  the  Government  by  force,  and  put  the  rebels  in  power,  — 
not  because  they  are  right,  not  because  his  proposition  would 
be  just  or  lawful,  but  simply  because  they  are  "  white  men." 
Mr.  Blair's  nomination  is  a  fitting  supplement  and  complement 
to  Mr.  Seymour's  candidacy.  During  the  war,  Blair  was  loyal 
and  did  gallant  and  valuable  service  in  the  field ;  while  Mr. 
Seymour  did  his  best,  inside  the  lines  of  prudence,  to  embar 
rass  the  Government.  In  time  of  peace,  I  think  it  likely,  if 
Mr.  Seymour  were  let  alone,  that  he  would  observe  the  law ; 


102  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS, 

while  Mr.  Blair,  having  become  fatigued  with  upholding  Con 
stitutional  Government,  proposes  now  to  overthrow  the  law  by 
violence.  It  would  have  been  a  better  arrangement  for  the  two 
men  on  the  Democratic  ticket  to  have  acted  together  during  the 
war.  Certainly  it  would  have  been  better  for  Seymour  to 
have  co-operated  with  Blair  in  time  of  war ;  and  perhaps  it 
might  be  better  for  Blair  to  co-operate  with  Seymour  in  time 
of  peace.  I  have  seen  nothing  in  the  menace  of  Governor 
Seymour's  position  that  leads  me  to  think  he  would  attempt  to 
overthrow  the  existing  body  of  laws  by  violence ;  and  yet  the 
fact  that  Blair  took  this  ground  in  advance  of  the  Convention, 
secured  his  nomination,  and  will  in  many  States,  so  far  as  Dem 
ocratic  votes  can  contribute,  strengthen  the  ticket. 

The  platform  upon  which  Messrs.  Seymour  and  Blair  stand 
reads  as  if  it  were  written  by  lineal  descendants  of  Robespierre 
and  Marat,  and  as  if  the  country  stood  on  the  eve  of  a  revolu 
tion,  instead  of  at  the  close  of  a  rebellion.  In  the  judgment  of 
the  Convention  which  framed  this  indictment,  every  thing  that 
exists  in  the  Government  at  present  is  wrong,  every  law  is  un 
wise,  every  officer  is  corrupt,  and  the  people  who,  according  to 
general  apprehension,  are  in  a  state  of  remarkable  prosperity, 
are  really  suffering  an  intolerable  series  of  burdens,  and  are 
ground  down  by  every  oppression.  The  Democrats  are  deter 
mined  to  tax  the  Government  bonds,  in  order  to  impair  the 
Government  credit ;  they  are  determined  that  there  shall  be  no 
coin  payment  of  Government  obligations,  that  everybody  shall 
be  amnestied,  and  practically  that  the  late  rebels  shall  take 
charge  of  the  National  Administration.  The  platform  reads, 
indeed,  as  if  it  had  been  written  by  an  intensely  nervous  man 
just  recovering  from  an  attack  of  delirium  tremens. 

The  Republicans,  according  to  this  intoxicated  platform,  have 
nullified  the  right  of  trial  by  jury,  destroyed  the  most  sacred 
muniments  of  liberty,  overthrown  the  freedom  of  speech  and  of 
the  press,  disregarded  the  rights  of  the  people  to  be  free  from 
search  and  seizure,  seized  everybody's  private  papers,  invaded 
the  post-office  and  telegraph,  converted  the  American  capital 
into  a  Bastile,  established  a  system  of  spies  and  official  espion 
age  to  which  no  European  Government  would  dare  resort,  abol 
ished  the  right  of  appeal  on  Constitutional  questions.  The 


GRANT  AND  SEYMOUR  COMPARED.  103 

crazy  platform  further  declares  that  the  corruption  and  ex 
travagance  of  the  Government  have  exceeded  any  thing  in 
history,  and  have,  by  means  of  frauds  and  monopolies,  nearly 
doubled  the  debt  created  by  the  war.  It  affirms  that  "  under 
the  repeated  assaults  of  these  wicked  Republicans  the  pillars 
of  Government  are  rocking  on  their  bases ;  and  in  case  "  (here 
comes  the  most  dreadful  indictment  of  all)  "they  shall  carry 
the  election  and  make  General  Grant  President,  we  will  meet 
only  as  a  subjected  and  conquered  people,  amid  the  ruins  of 
liberty  and  the  scattered  fragments  of  the  Constitution." 

I  am  sure  that  it  would  be  dignifying  this  tirade  far  too 
much  to  attempt  to  meet  it  with  argument,  or  even  with  a 
denial.  The  best  answer  to  it  is  to  read  it.  Reading  it,  we 
can  readily  infer  the  character  and  aims  of  the  men  who  are 
guilty  of  its  stupendous  folly.  The  platform  will  only  serve 
for  ridicule  in  the  campaign,  to  be  jeered  and  laughed  at !  But 
the  real  issue  will  come  back  to  the  point  where  it  started :  Do 
you  not  prefer  Ulysses  S.  Grant  to  Horatio  Seymour,  as  the 
next  President  of  the  United  States  ?  And  do  you  not  think 
that  Schuyler  Colfax  is  better  to  be  trusted,  as  Vice-President, 
than  the  man  who  has  talked  so  lightly,  threatened  so  loudly, 
and  behaved  so  absurdly  as  General  Frank  Blair  ? 


104  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


MR.    BURLINGAME    AS    AN    ORATOR. 


[Originally  published  by  Mr.  Elaine  in  the  Atlantic  Monthly  of  November, 

1870.] 

THOSE  who  were  personally  intimate  or  even  casually  ac 
quainted  with  the  late  Mr.  Burlingame,  will  remember  his  ease 
and  fluency  of  speech  in  ordinary  conversation.  But  writing 
was  labor  and  weariness  to  him.  It  seemed  impossible  for  him 
to  establish  a  rapid  transit  between  his  brain  and  the  end  of  his 
pen.  What  he  prepared  in  the  way  of  official  communication 
was  graceful,  strong  and  effective,  but  it  was  generally,  if  not 
always,  dictated  while  he  walked  back  and  forth  phrasing  aloud 
as  though  he  were  directly  addressing  an  eager  and  interested 
listener. 

Mr.  Burlingame's  public  speeches,  whether  in  the  Legislative 
Chamber,  on  the  American  platform,  or  as  Ambassador  at  the 
courts  of  the  civilized  world,  were  always  prepared  with  elabora 
tion  and  with  minute  attention  to  details.  But  not  one  word 
was  ever  written.  He  possessed  the  singular  faculty  of  not  only 
casting  the  general  outline  of  his  discourse,  but  of  ordering  the 
exact  style  of  his  diction,  without  resorting  to  the  use  of  note 
or  memorandum  to  aid  his  memory.  His  habit  was  to  form 
in  his  mind  a  clear  and  accurate  conception  of  the  subject, 
to  mark  its  natural  divisions,  analyze  its  connections  and  se 
quences,  and  then,  with  utmost  care,  to  frame  the  sentences  and 
paragraphs  which  should  make  up  the  speech.  After  silently 
and  thoroughly  digesting  the  whole  subject,  rhetorically  as 
well  as  logically,  he  would  repeat  the  entire  oration  aloud,  over 
and  over  again.  He  used  frequently  to  say  "  that  no  one 
could  tell  how  a  phrase  or  sentence  would  strike  the  ear  of  an 
audience  until  it  was  tested  by  actual  hearing."  In  the  same 
connection,  he  would  add  that  he  "very  often  changed  and 


MR.  BURLINGAME  AS  AN  ORATOR.  105 

corrected  the  structure  of  a  whole  paragraph  on  finding  that  the 
way  he  had  thought  it  out  was  not  the  way  that  sounded  best." 
Charles  James  Fox  had  no  confidence  in  the  effect  upon  the 
House  of  Commons  of  a  speech  that  read  well ;  and  Mr.  Bur- 
lingame  seemed  to  have  a  similar  intuition  in  regard  to  the 
requirements  of  both  the  popular  and  the  Parliamentary  ear. 

With  a  speech  thus  prepared,  Mr.  Burlingame's  delivery  was 
exceedingly  impressive.  He  spoke  with  the  unerring  correctness 
of  one  who  had  thoroughly  studied  his  part,  and  yet  with  the 
absolute  freshness  and  apparent  spontaneity  of  a  man  who  had 
sprung  to  his  feet  with  the  overflowing  fullness  of  the  subject 
and  the  uncontrollable  impulse  of  the  occasion.  He  had  the 
remarkable  gift  of  retaining  this  freshness  and  spontaneity,  how 
ever  frequently  he  repeated  the  speech.  The  precision  of  his 
repetition  was  among  the  noteworthy  features  of  his  oratory. 
In  what  is  termed  a  campaign  speech  it  is  difficult  for  the  best- 
filled  mind  and  the  readiest  tongue  to  make  more  than  one  com 
prehensive  and  really  valuable  presentation  of  the  pending 
issues.  The  questions  to  be  discussed  on  successive  days  in 
one  election  are  so  entirely  identical  as  to  admit  of  but  slight 
variation  in  the  mode  of  treatment  by  the  same  speaker.  The 
prince  of  campaign  orators,  Mr.  Corwin  of  Ohio,  was  in  the 
habit  of  saying  "  that  a  man  who  should  attempt  a  fresh  speech 
on  every  stump  would  never  have  any  speech  worth  listening 
to."  While,  therefore,  it  is  to  be  expected  that  a  general 
similarity  will  of  necessity  pervade  the  speeches  of  any  man 
who  attempts  to  discuss  the  issues  of  a  political  campaign,  it 
was  peculiar  to  Mr.  Buiiingame  to  deliver  day  after  day  the 
same  speech  exactly,  verbatim  et  literatim  et  punctuatim.  He 
was  wise  in  so  doing.  Any  attempt  to  change  the  thread  of  his 
argument  or  to  vary  the  felicitous  illustrations  of  his  rhetoric, 
would  have  deranged  the  entire  framework  of  that  which  he 
had  fitly  compacted  and  joined  together.  He  always  kept  in 
mind  that  he  had  a  different  audience  every  day,  and  that  how 
ever  hackneyed  the  speech  might  become  to  himself,  it  was  fresh 
and  new  to  each  succeeding  crowd  of  hearers.  But,  in  fact,  the 
speech  did  not  become  hackneyed  to  himself,  for  the  moment 
he  faced  a  sympathetic  audience  he  partook  of  their  temper, 
grew  elated  with  their  interest  and  forgot  in  the  intensity  of 


106  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

to-day's  magnetism  that  he  was  repeating  the  sayings  of  yes 
terday. 

It  was  the  magnetism  of  Mr.  Burlingame  that  made  him  pre 
eminently  effective  before  an  assemblage  of  the  people.  What 
precisely  is  meant  by  magnetism  it  might  be  difficult  to  define, 
but  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  Mr.  Burlingame  possessed  a 
great  reserve  of  that  subtile,  forceful,  overwhelming  power 
which  the  word  magnetism  is  used  to  signify.  It  was  quite 
independent  of  his  volition,  not  in  any  sense  under  his  control, 
and  not  indeed  dominant  over  others  until  it  had  made  him  all 
aglow  with  its  fiery  enthusiasm.  Si  vis  me  flere,  dolendum  est 
primum  ipsi  tibi.  Mr.  Burlingame  was  not  an  actor ;  he  never 
simulated  a  part,  he  never  sought  to  stir  his  hearers  with  a  pas 
sion  or  a  sentiment  with  which  he  was  not  himself  profoundly 
stirred  in  advance.  Mr.  Webster  in  his  description  of  Samuel 
Dexter  as  an  orator,  says  that  "  the  earnestness  of  his  convic 
tion  wrought  conviction  in  others."  The  earnestness  of  Mr. 
Burlingame  was  similarly  effective.  What  he  believed  he  be 
lieved  with  such  intensity,  what  he  spoke  he  spoke  with  such 
fervor,  that  the  unbidden  impulse  was  "  to  believe  and  assent 
and  be  convinced," — we  again  quote  Mr.  Webster,  —  "  because 
it  was  gratifying  and  delightful  to  think  and  feel  and  believe  in 
unison  with  him." 

This  power  which  Mr.  Burlingame  possessed  was  not  depend 
ent  on  speech,  though  of  course  it  was  greatly  deepened  and 
strengthened  by  it.  Its  influence  was  nevermore  potential  and 
commanding  than  at  the  capital  of  China,  where,  after  seven 
years  of  brilliant  success  as  American  minister,  he  was  selected 
by  the  Government  to  represent  the  Celestial  Empire  at  all  the 
courts  of  the  earth.  He  did  not  understand  the  Chinese  lan 
guage,  did  not  attempt  to  write  it,  never  essayed  to  speak  it ; 
and  yet,  through  the  broken  circuit  of  an  interpreter,  the  cur 
rent  of  his  magnetism  reached  the  mandarins  of  Pekin  as 
effectively  as  his  living  voice  ever  electrified  a  Boston  audience 
in  Faneuil  Hall. 

This  is  no  small  praise.  Indeed,  Mr.  Burlingame's  success  at 
Pekin  will  always  remain  the  distinguishing  feature  of  his  re 
markable  career.  The  eminence  he  achieved,  the  influence  he 
exerted,  the  reputation  he  acquired  in  China,  are  almost  without 


MR.  BURLINGAME  AS  AN  ORATOR.  107 

parallel.  Prior  to  Mr.  Burlingame,  our  country  had  been  repre 
sented  at  the  Chinese  court  by  ministers  of  superior  training  and 
commanding  talent.  As  far  back  as  John  Tyler's  day  we  had 
Caleb  Gushing,  then  in  the  early  prime  of  an  illustrious  career. 
He  went  to  China,  rich  in  learning,  a  linguist  of  rare  attain 
ments,  with  diplomatic  talent  of  the  highest  order,  thoroughly 
versed  in  International  Law,  possessed  of  an  acute  intellect 
singularly  fitted  to  cope  with  and  control  the  mind  of  the 
Orient.  A  few  years  later,  in  Mr.  Fillmore's  Presidency, 
Humphrey  Marshall  of  Kentucky  was  sent  to  represent  us  at 
Pekin.  Less  eminent  in  culture  than  Mr.  Gushing,  he  is 
scarcely  the  inferior  of  any  man  in  natural  ability.  To  the 
talent  of  the  Marshalls,  conspicuous  and  brilliant  through  four 
generations,  he  adds  through  his  mother  the  blood  and  the 
brain  of  the  Birneys.  He  went  upon  his  mission  when  young, 
with  military  laurels  won  in  the  Mexican  war,  and  with  the 
further  prestige  of  a  distinguished  career  in  Congress.  Follow 
ing  Marshall,  William  B.  Reed  of  Pennsylvania  was  sent  thither 
by  his  devoted  personal  friend,  President  Buchanan.  Mr.  Eeed 
has  long  been  a  leading  member  of  the  Philadelphia  bar,  and 
like  Mr.  Gushing  is  of  generous  culture  outside  the  limits  of 
his  profession,  in  which  he  is  regarded  by  those  who  know 
him  best  as  among  the  most  accomplished  and  most  acute  of 
American  jurists. 

Such  were  the  men  whom  Mr.  Burlingame  succeeded  in  his 
diplomatic  career.  It  is  not  stating  the  case  too  strongly  to 
say  that  at  no  European  court  did  we  have  superior  ability 
during  the  service  of  the  three  gentlemen  we  have  named.  Yet 
the  influence  of  these  men,  with  all  their  conceded  gifts  and 
accomplishments,  did  not  compare  with  the  influence  exerted 
by  Mr.  Burlingame.  Indeed,  it  was  the  testimony  of  Sir 
Frederick  Bruce,  who  was  at  Pekin  as  the  representative  of 
England  at  the  same  time,  that  no  foreign  minister  had  ever 
gained  such  ascendency  in  the  councils  of  the  Chinese  as  Mr. 
Burlingame.  His  selection,  therefore,  for  the  most  important 
mission  which  China  ever  sent  to  Christian  nations,  was  not 
matter  of  accident  or  fortune,  but  grew  naturally  from  the  ex 
alted  estimate  placed  upon  his  ability  and  fitness  by  the  leading 
minds  of  the  Pekin  Government.  As  an  example  of  the  influ- 


108  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

ence  which  one  man  maj  attain  over  an  alien  race,  whose  civ 
ilization  is  widely  different,  whose  religious  belief  is  totally 
opposite,  whose  language  he  does  not  read  or  write  or  speak, 
Mr.  Burlingame's  career  in  China  must  always  be  regarded  as 
extraordinary.  It  cannot  be  accounted  for  except  by  conced 
ing  to  him  a  peculiar  power  over  those  with  whom  he  came 
in  contact ;  a  power  growing  out  of  a  mysterious  gift,  partly 
intellectual,  partly  spiritual,  largely  physical ;  a  power  whose 
laws  are  unknown,  whose  origin  cannot  be  traced,  whose  limits 
cannot  be  assigned ;  a  power  which,  for  the  want  of  a  more 
comprehensive  and  significant  term,  recurring  to  our  postulate, 
we  designate  as  magnetism. 

This,  in  fine,  was  his  power  as  an  orator.  It  was  not  so  much 
what  he  said  as  his  manner  of  saying  it,  that  gave  a  peculiar 
charm  and  force  to  his  words.  Dependent  upon  this  quality  for 
success,  he  sometimes  failed,  for  "  lack  of  inspiration  "  as  he 
termed  it.  The  same  speech  would  on  one  occasion  carry  his 
hearers  to  the  highest  pitch  of  enthusiasm,  and  the  triumph  be 
repeated  perhaps  a  score  of  times ;  yet  on  another  occasion  he 
would  fail.  He  could  not  become  en  rapport  with  his  audience, 
and  the  whole  speech  would  prove  the  dreariest  of  drudgery  to 
him.  His  success  in  1856,  as  an  advocate  of  Fre'mont,  and 
again  in  1860  as  a  supporter  of  Lincoln,  was  a  leading  feature 
in  each  of  those  memorable  campaigns.  In  New  England,  in 
the  Middle  States,  in  the  West,  he  was  equally  and  widely 
popular.  It  is  perhaps  not  extravagant  to  assert  that,  so  far  as 
public  speaking  contributed  to  Republican  victory  in  the  nation, 
no  one  bore  a  more  conspicuous  and  influential  part  than  Mr. 
Burlingame.  Seven  years'  absence  from  American  associations 
had  not  diminished  his  sway  over  American  audiences.  His 
addresses,  when  he  passed  through  our  country  in  1868,  at  the 
head  of  the  Chinese  Embassy,  were  full  of  his  old  force  and 
fire.  Had  he  lived  to  realize  his  cherished  purpose  of  once  more 
participating  in  the  public  and  political  affairs  of  his  native 
land,  he  would  have  taken  and  maintained  a  foremost  position. 
But  this  final  triumph  was  not  reserved  for  him.  His  career 
closed  suddenly,  and,  to  mortal  vision,  prematurely.  He  died 
at  the  early  age  of  forty-seven,  lamented,  honored,  beloved,  on 
three  continents. 


HORACE  GREELEY  AS  A  PRESIDENTIAL  CANDIDATE.      109 


THE    NOMINATION    OF    HORACE    GREELEY   AS    A 
PRESIDENTIAL    CANDIDATE. 


[Speech  delivered  by  Mr.  Blaine  at  Lincoln  County  (Me.)  Republican  Con 
vention,  July  27,  1872.] 

FELLOW-CITIZENS,  —  In  discussing  the  pending  contest  for 
the  Presidency,  I  think  it  is  becoming,  at  the  outset,  to  tender 
our  condolence  to  those  disappointed  and  dissatisfied  politicians 
who  called  the  Liberal  Republican  Convention  at  Cincinnati  for 
the  express  purpose  of  nominating  Charles  Francis  Adams.  In 
some  way,  not  foreseen  by  the  callers,  delegates  flocked  to  the 
Convention  in  numbers  too  large  to  be  disciplined  and  led  by 
Mr.  Carl  Schurz  and  his  small  band  of  political  recusants  and 
self-seekers ;  and  the  Adams  programme,  though  carefully 
planned,  utterly  miscarried  in  the  end.  Gentlemen  of  inde 
pendent  views,  of  personal  character,  with  homes  in  which 
they  live,  and  with  neighbors  who  respect  them,  took  control 
of  the  Convention ;  and  instead  of  nominating  Mr.  Adams, 
they  chose  a  man  who  in  almost  every  respect  radically  differs 
from  him.  I  think,  indeed,  it  would  be  difficult  to  find 
two  men  of  New  England  birth  who  in  temper  and  tempera 
ment,  in  mental  quality,  and  in  every  characteristic  that  makes 
the  difference  between  individuals,  are  so  radically  unlike  as 
Horace  Greeley  and  Charles  Francis  Adams.  Perhaps  I  could 
not  define  the  points  of  difference  without  falling  into  a  line  of 
criticism  and  analysis  that  would  prove  too  personal  for  the 
amenities  of  public  speech.  Nor  would  it  be  to  my  purpose. 
I  have  dwelt  on  this  phase  of  Mr.  Greeley's  nomination  only  to 
express  my  gratification  with  the  fact  that  the  original  bolters 
from  the  Republican  party,  who  called  the  Cincinnati  Conven 
tion,  feel  far  worse  over  the  result  of  its  deliberations  than  do 


HO  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

the  Republicans  who  remain  true  to  their  party  faith  and  alle 
giance.  The  Republican  bolters  who  supported  Mr.  Adams 
met  their  discomfiture  in  May,  and  I  feel  quite  sure  that  the 
friends  of  Mr.  Greeley  will  meet  theirs  in  November. 

Far  more  important  than  the  action  of  the  Republican  desert 
ers  at  the  May  Convention  is  that  of  the  National  Democracy 
in  this  month  of  July.  In  fact,  Mr.  Greeley's  nomination  by 
the  deserters  sinks  to  insignificance,  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
against  every  sense  of  consistency  and  every  suggestion  of  pro 
priety,  with  the  sacrifice  of  almost  every  principle  the  party 
ever  professed,  the  Democracy  of  the  Nation,  with  the  South 
in  the  lead, "have  selected  Horace  Greeley  as  their  candidate  for 
the  Presidency.  The  loyal  man  has  been  endorsed  by  the 
rebel,  the  patriot  is  embraced  by  the  traitor,  the  Prohibitionist 
is  approved  by  the  party  of  lager  beer  and  free  rum,  the  Pro 
tectionist  is  accepted  by  the  Free-Trader,  the  Abolitionist  is  wel 
comed  by  the  whole  body  of  ancient  slaveholders.  Whatever 
Horace  Greeley  has  been  for  the  past  thirty  years  is  precisely 
what  the  Democracy  have  not  been  :  whatever  he  has  professed 
is  precisely  what  the  Democracy  have  derided  and  denounced. 

Since  the  action  of  the  Democratic  Convention,  we  can 
plainly  see  what  before  was  matter  of  inference  and  conjecture ; 
viz.,  that  the  so-called  Liberal  Republican  Convention  was 
summoned  in  pursuance  of  an  agreement  previously  made  with 
Democratic  leaders,  and  with  the  distinct  understanding  that 
the  candidate  of  the  Republican  deserters  should  also  become 
the  candidate  of  the  Democracy ;  that  party  fealty,  political 
principle,  personal  pledges,  ancient  prejudice,  hoary  tradition, 
boasted  record,  should  all  be  subordinated  by  the  Democracy, 
and  a  coalition  should  be  formed  simply  on  the  basis  of  defeat 
ing  General  Grant,  and  taking  charge  of  the  Government  with 
its  power  and  its  patronage. 

It  must  not  be  forgotten,  however,  that  the  agreement  thus 
secretly  made  between  assumed  leaders  never  contemplated 
that  the  Democracy  should  be  subjected  to  such  a  test  and  such 
a  strain  as  is  applied  to  them  by  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Greeley. 
The  Democratic  leaders  had  made  up  their  minds  to  support 
Mr.  Charles  Francis  Adams,  and  never  for  a  moment  doubted 
his  readiness  to  respond  to  all  Democratic  demands.  They 


HORACE  GREELEY  AS  A  PRESIDENTIAL  CANDIDATE.     Ill 

knew  that  since  the  death  of  old  John  Adams,  no  member  of 
his  family  had  ever  been  steadfastly  true  to  the  organization  or 
the  principles  of  any  political  party ;  and  they  believed,  there 
fore,  with  all  sincerity,  that  the  late  Minister  to  England,  who 
saw  no  opportunity  for  further  promotion  in  the  Republican 
party,  would,  according  to  the  tradition  of  his  blood  and  the 
example  of  his  father,  not  hesitate  to  unite  with  the  Democracy 
upon  the  distinct  understanding  that  the  Democracy  should 
first  unite  on  him. 

Unwelcome  as  it  was  to  the  Democracy  to  substitute  Mr. 
Greeley  for  Mr.  Adams,  difficult  as  it  seemed  for  a  time  to  com 
plete  the  coalition  on  the  basis  of  the  former's  candidacy,  the 
old  party,  like  many  individuals  engaged  in  a  questionable 
transaction  and  somewhat  startled  by  unexpected  developments, 
found  it,  nevertheless,  easier  to  go  forward  than  to  retreat, 
easier  to  put  on  a  brazen  face  and  a  bold  front  than  to  acknowl 
edge  their  inconsistency,  their  disingenuousness,  their  readiness 
to  sacrifice  lifelong  principle  for  even  a  remote  chance  of  the 
prestige  of  victory  and  the  spoils  of  office. 

To  cement  the  coalition,  to  add  the  last  drop  of  humiliation 
to  the  cup  which  is  put  to  the  lips  of  the  Democracy,  it  was 
agreed  by  the  National  Convention  of  that  party  that  the  plat 
form  adopted  by  the  Liberal  Republican  Convention  at  Cincin 
nati  should  be  taken  without  dotting  an  i  or  crossing  a  t  — 
with  wry  faces  I  doubt  not,  but  with  a  loud-sounding  declara 
tion  that  they  believed  the  principles  announced  by  them  to  be 
"essential  to  just  government." 

Gentlemen,  this  political  combination  is  as  bad  as  that  de 
scribed  by  John  Randolph,  when,  with  his  vindictive  bitterness, 
he  denounced  the  union  of  the  Puritan  and  the  blackleg,  and 
described  it  as  equal  in  shame  to  the  association  of  Blifil  and 
Black  George.  It  cannot  succeed.  It  is  a  failure  from  the 
beginning.  It  is  doomed  to  destruction  from  its  birth.  It  is 
an  unnatural  alliance,  which  avenging  fate  will  put  asunder. 
You  cannot  unite  Horace  Greeley  in  sympathy  with  Jefferson 
Davis  and  Robert  Toombs :  you  cannot  bring  him  into  political 
fellowship  with  the  pirates  who  manned  the  Confederate  cruis 
ers,  with  the  fiends  in  human  shape  who  tortured  Union  sol 
diers  at  Andersonville,  with  the  inhuman  wretches  who  refused 


112  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

quarter  to  negro  soldiers  taken  prisoners  in  honorable  warfare 
with  arms  in  their  hands. 

Coalitions,  gentlemen,  are  proverbially  weak.  They  are 
weak  precisely  in  proportion  to  the  degree  of  antagonism  which 
is  to  be  allayed,  precisely  in  proportion  to  the  disagreements 
which  are  to  be  reconciled.  As  a  political  device  coalitions  are 
not  new.  They  have  been  tried  of  old  in  England,  and  have 
ended  always  with  defeat  and  sometimes  with  disgrace.  In 
our  Republican  system  of  government,  successful  coalition  is 
even  more  difficult  than  where  aristocratic  institutions  restrain 
freedom  of  discussion  and  limit  the  sphere  of  independent 
action.  But  in  the  whole  history  of  coalitions,  successful  or 
unsuccessful,  abroad  or  at  home,  that  which  is  now  attempted 
is  at  once  the  most  difficult  and  the  —  what  shall  I  say?  the 
most  discreditable  ?  I  should  think  Mr.  Greeley  would  every 
morning  awake  from  sleep  disturbed  by  unpleasant  visions,  and 
sigh  heavily  for  the  old  patriotic  associates  among  whom  his 
life  and  his  labor  have  been  honored,  and  to  whom,  for  all  these 
years,  he  has  been  guide,  philosopher  and  friend,  fireside  com 
panion  and  trusted  counselor ! 

An  analysis  of  the  Liberal  Republican  platform  to  which  the 
Democratic  National  Convention  pledged  faith  and  fealty,  will 
show  how  a  great  body  of  men  who  are  read}^  to  fight  if  their 
honor  be  challenged,  will  yet  give  pledge  to  uphold  certain 
political  principles,  when  in  their  hearts  they  mean  no  such 
thing,  and  when  in  fact  their  partisan  word  is  to  be  taken  as 
lightly  and  held  to  be  as  meaningless  as  the  oath  of  an  Alsa 
tian  dicer.  In  the  Democratic  National  Convention  there 
were  many  delegates  who  either  actively  or  by  instigation  and 
approval  have  been  depriving  colored  voters  in  the  South  of 
all  their  civil  rights  for  the  past  four  years,  and  who  now  glibly 
vote  for  a  resolution  declaring  their  determination  "  to  mete 
out  equal  and  exact  justice  to  all,  of  whatever  nativity,  race, 
color  or  persuasion,  religious  and  political."  When  they  were 
declaring  this  monstrous  falsehood  they  had  to  seal  their  ears 
against  the  cries  of  their  victims,  and  might,  if  they  had  a 
shadow  of  conscience  left,  fear  that  the  fate  of  their  Scriptural 
prototypes  would  instantly  be  theirs. 

To  maintain  and  even  exaggerate  this  ghastly  farce,  all  the 


HORACE  GREELEY  AS  A  PRESIDENTIAL  CANDIDATE.      113 

old  Confederate  soldiers  who  figured  so  largely  in  the  Southern 
delegations  to  the  Convention,  joined  heartily  in  the  Liberal 
Republican  declaration  of  gratitude  to  "  the  heroism  and  sacri 
fices  of  the  soldiers  and  sailors  of  the  Republic."  If  the  uni 
ties  of  time  and  place  had  been  observed,  it  would  have  been 
more  frank  and  more  striking  for  the  Confederate  soldiers  to 
render  "thanks  to  God  for  their  defeat  in  the  civil  war"  If  they 
did  not  feel  like  doing  that,  how  could  they  express  their  grati 
tude  to  their  victors,  and  further  declare  that  no  act  of  theirs 
44  shall  ever  detract  from  the  justly  earned  fame  of  those  victors 
or  the  full  rewards  of  their  patriotism  "  ?  This  is  all  so  absurd 
as  to  be  amusing.  No  man  has  ever  denied  or  questioned  the 
bravery  of  the  Confederate  soldiery,  but  we  never  heard  a 
degree  of  humility  and  resignation  imputed  to  them  that  would 
entitle  them  to  be  considered  kinsmen  of  Uriah  Heep.  Yet 
the  Democratic  platform  so  far  overdoes  the  necessities  of  the 
situation  as  to  degrade  the  proud  spirit  of  the  South,  and  to 
degrade  it  needlessly  and  untruthfully. 

Then,  again,  the  repudiating  element  that  was  really  repre 
sented  to  a  large  extent  in  the  Convention,  was  made  to  declare 
that  "  the  public  debt  must  be  sacredly  maintained,  and  we 
denounce  repudiation  in  every  form  and  guise."  Not  content 
with  this  wholesale  affirmation  of  a  faith  that  was  not  in  them, 
the  Convention,  including  the  delegates  who  had  been  for  years 
demanding  that  the  public  debt  should  be  paid  in  irredeemable 
greenbacks,  now  declared  that  "a  speedy  return  to  specie  is 
demanded  alike  by  the  highest  considerations  of  commercial 
morality  and  honest  government."  The  presumption  is  that  in 
the  Convention  which  made  this  affirmation  with  approximate 
unanimity,  there  was  not,  outside  of  New  England  and  New 
York,  a  baker's  dozen  of  delegates  who  believed  it  or  who 
intended  to  support  it  in  the  forthcoming  canvass  throughout 
the  country.  The  declaration  was  for  the  political  market  of 
the  North-East,  and  was  silently  ignored  or  savagely  repudiated 
by  the  Democracy  of  the  South-West. 

But  while  the  Democracy  seemed  willing  to  make  in  their 
Convention  any  affirmation  that  was  demanded  of  them,  they 
finally  struck  a  question  on  which  the  Liberal  Republicans  had 
been  unable  to  agree.  The  supporters  of  Charles  Francis 


114  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

Adams  were  almost  wholly  Free-Traders,  and  if  their  plans  had 
been  successful,  a  Free-trade  platform  would  have  been  sent  to 
the  Democratic  Convention  as  the  common  ground  of  political 
faith  and  common  basis  of  action.  But  the  nomination  of  Mr. 
Greeley  broke  this  plan.  From  his  earliest  participation  in  polit 
ical  affairs,  even  from  his  boyhood,  when  he  warmly  espoused 
the  cause  of  Mr.  Clay,  it  was  known  that  Mr.  Greeley  was  not 
only  a  Protectionist,  but  what  the  Free-Traders  term  a  "  crazy 
Protectionist."  He  could  not,  therefore,  stand  on  the  platform 
first  designed  for  the  Convention ;  and  per  contra  the  Free- 
Traders  who  designed  that  platform  were,  of  course,  unwilling 
to  stand  on  a  Protection  platform.  There  was,  in  fact,  a  broad 
and  radical  difference  between  the  men  who  had  worked  for 
Adams  and  the  men  who  had  succeeded  in  nominating  Greeley. 
One  represented  the  immovable  body,  the  other  the  irresistible 
force,  and  it  was  idle  therefore  to  impel  the  one  against  the 
other.  Hence  a  compromise  was  agreed  upon,  and  certainly  a 
man  must  be  blinded  by  charity  or  by  lack  of  knowledge  who 
is  willing  to  call  it  an  honest  compromise.  Here  it  is.  Please 
weigh  its  words  as  I  read  it :  "  Recognizing  that  there  are  in 
our  midst  honest  but  irreconcilable  differences  of  opinion  with 
regard  to  the  respective  systems  of  Protection  and  Free  Trade, 
we  remit  the  discussion  of  the  subject  to  the  people  in  their 
Congressional  districts,  and  the  decision  of  Congress  thereon, 
wholly  free  from  Executive  interference  or  dictation." 

I  have  always  noticed  that  the  men  who  profess  a  standard 
of  political  faith  very  much  higher  than  that  of  their  neighbors, 
and  assume  the  true  and  lofty  air  of  the  Pharisee,  can  always 
be  expected  to  resort  to  some  exceedingly  dishonest  practice 
or  perform  some  very  objectionable  trick  when  temptation  or 
assumed  necessity  demands  it.  When  this  particular  trick  is 
analyzed,  we  find  this  to  be  the  resultant:  —  unable  to  agree 
on  one  of  the  leading  issues  before  the  people  (I  might  say 
the  leading  issue,  if  its  rank  be  determined  by  the  number  of 
voters  personally  interested  in  its  settlement),  the  coalition 
agree  that  they  will  have  no  views  whatever  on  the  question ! 
Engaged  in  a  national  campaign,  asking  that  the  supreme  power 
of  the  nation  be  entrusted  to  their  hands,  they  yet  confess  that 
on  a  question  in  which  millions  of  people  are  interested  they 


HORACE  GREELEY  AS  A  PRESIDENTIAL  CANDIDATE.     115 

have  no  views,  and  refuse  to  take  any  position.  Do  they 
intend,  by  this  course,  to  cheat  somebody?  If  so,  who  is  to 
be  cheated?  Is  Mr.  Greeley,  if  made  President,  to  cheat  the 
Protectionists?  or  are  the  members  of  the  coalition  to  watch 
each  other,  and  see  that  neither  shall  cheat  the  other  ?  —  thus 
beginning  their  administration  of  the  Government,  if  so  grave 
a  responsibility  should  be  imposed  upon  them,  with  a  greater 
degree  of  mutual  distrust  than  either  faction  would  feel  towards 
their  common  political  foe. 

Fellow-citizens,  it  never  was  intended  that  the  Government 
of  the  United  States,  or  any  other  honorable  Government  on 
the  face  of  the  earth,  should  be  administered  in  that  insincere, 
ill-adjusted,  self-contradictory  mode  !  The  precedents  of  our 
administration  of  the  Government  are  all  against  it.  Common 
sense  is  against  it,  and  common  honesty  is  against  it.  It  is  not 
direct,  straightforward,  and  candid.  It  has  trickery  for  its 
basis,  and  knavery  for  its  spirit,  and  is  only  invented  to  per 
mit  Free-Traders,  like  Mr.  Schurz,  and  Protectionists,  like  Mr. 
Greeley,  to  neglect  the  ponderous  issues  of  the  hour,  and  unite 
upon  the  common  ground  of  mere  personal  hostility  and  petty 
spleen  against  General  Grant. 

The  opponents  of  President  Grant  adopt  the  most  unwise 
of  policies  when  they  seek  to  make  personal  warfare  upon 
him,  to  cast  opprobrium  upon  him,  and  to  throw  calumny  and 
suspicion  upon  his  good  name.  The  strength  of  the  President 
before  the  people  is  due,  not  alone  to  his  brilliant  military 
achievements,  but  to  that  vigor  and  directness  of  character, 
that  rugged  personal  integrity,  which  in  every  relation  of  life 
have  distinguished  him.  His  opponents  are  especially  unwise 
to  challenge  him  on  his  strong  side. 

The  result  of  the  election  will  show  that  thousands  of  people 
in  every  loyal  State,  who  perhaps  cli'ffer  from  General  Grant 
in  certain  views  of  public  questions,  will  resent  the  imputations 
upon  his  character  as  a  personal  affront  to  themselves.  The 
people  of  the  United  States  feel  profound  gratitude  to  the  Presi 
dent  for  his  illustrious  services  to  the  Union  during  the  war, 
and  they  will  not  hear  him  maligned  and  insulted  by  a  soi- 
disant  general  like  Carl  Schurz,  without  hot  resentment  of  the 
wrong,  and  without  contempt  for  the  man  who  failed  with 


116  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

the  sword  and  tries  to  slander  the  great  soldiers  whom  he 
could  only  envy,  and  not  rival,  during  the  war. 

In  thus  sketching  the  origin  and  character  of  what  is  now 
popularly  known  as  the  "  Greeley  movement,"  I  have  dwelt 
somewhat  on  its  personal  aspects.  In  the  wider  and  more 
important  field  of  principles  which  are  at  stake,  and  measures 
which  are  in  issue,  the  argument  is  even  stronger  in  support 
of  the  Republican  party.  In  fact,  the  Greeley  party,  in  its 
composite  character,  presents  no  measure,  except  slander  of  the 
Grant  Administration.  The  two  Conventions  that  nominated 
Mr.  Greeley  have  practically  copied  the  Republican  platform, 
except  on  the  one  important  question  of  the  tariff,  where,  as  I 
have  shown,  they  utterly  declined  to  express  an  opinion  either 
way.  In  truth,  the  Democratic  party  has  been  so  thoroughly 
defeated  on  every  point  it  has  raised  during  the  last  ten  years, 
or  since  the  beginning  of  the  war,  that  its  leaders  are  unable  to 
present  a  single  question  on  which  they  can  rally  and  unite 
their  party. 

It  is  really  instructive  as  a  matter  of  political  history,  aside 
from  its  pertinency  as  an  argument  in  this  campaign,  to  recall 
the  disastrous  defeats  which  the  Democracy  have  met,  as  time 
after  time  they  have  assumed  what  they  considered  impreg 
nable  positions.  After  the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  before 
his  inauguration,  the  Democracy,  North  and  South  alike,  de 
clared  the  States  to  be  sovereign,  denied  that  they  constituted 
a  Nation,  maintained  that  each  State  is  a  law  unto  itself  and 
could  not  be  coerced  to  remain  in  a  Union  from  which  it  should 
choose  to  secede.  That  Democratic  doctrine  was  trampled  under 
foot  on  a  hundred  battle-fields,  and  died  the  death  of  the 
treason  which  it  was  well  designed  to  protect. 

The  next  issue  on  which  the  Northern  Democracy  were  con 
solidated  was  that  the  war  was  a  failure,  and  that  the  enemies 
of  the  Union  could  not  be  conquered  by  arms.  They  there 
fore  demanded  an  armistice  and  a  negotiation  with  rebels. 
This  was  the  avowed  position  of  the  Democratic  National  Con 
vention  of  1864 ;  and  the  echoes  of  the  treasonous  declaration 
had  scarcely  died  away  before  the  thunder  of  Sheridan's  guns 
in  the  valley  of  Virginia  pronounced  it  false.  In  a  half-year 
only  from  the  time  the  Democracy  of  the  North  had  proclaimed 


HORACE  GREELEY  AS  A  PRESIDENTIAL  CANDIDATE.      117 

the  impossibility  of  conquering  the  rebellion,  the  armies  of  the 
Confederacy  were  destroyed,  and  General  Grant,  whom  the 
same  Democrats  are  now  loading  with  bitterest  vituperation, 
was  in  possession  of  the  parole  of  the  last  soldier  that  formed 
the  army  of  Robert  E.  Lee.  Thus  again  the  Democratic  party 
was  put  to  open  shame. 

But  I  need  not  pursue  these  abortive  efforts  of  the  Democracy 
in  detail.  The  mere  recital  of  them  will  show  how  often  and 
how  humiliatingly  they  have  been  beaten  on  their  selected 
ground.  You  know  how  ingloriously  they  failed  in  their  op 
position  to  the  "  Draft,"  and  in  their  repeated  declaration  that 
a  Conscription  Law  was  unconstitutional  —  a  position  upheld 
for  them  by  Judge  Woodward,  a  Democratic  judge  of  the 
Supreme  Court  in  Pennsylvania  ;  how  glaringly  unsuccessful 
was  their  hostility  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  !  Still  greater,  if 
possible,  was  their  folly  in  rejecting  the  military  aid  which 
colored  men  could  bring  to  the  Union  Army !  You  remember 
how  they  struggled  against  the  concession  of  the  right  of  suf 
frage  to  the  colored  man  ;  how  they  fought  the  Constitutional 
Amendments  —  Thirteenth,  Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  suc 
cessively  —  fought  them  in  Congress,  in  State  Legislatures,  and 
before  popular  assemblies  ;  how  they  resisted  the  issuing  of 
legal-tender  money,  even  when  the  Government  needed  it  as 
a  means  of  supporting  the  army  and  carrying  on  the  war ; 
how,  fhree  years  after  the  war  had  closed,  they  strove  to  injure 
our  credit  and  blot  the  fair  fame  of  the  Nation  by  paying  off 
the  public  debt  in  depreciated  paper  money ! 

On  all  these  issues  the  Democracy  have  been  beaten  ;  not  in 
the  ordinary  sense  of  defeat,  but  in  a  way  that  left  a  stain  of 
dishonor  on  the  party  for  having  attempted  each  time  to  do 
something  which  if  successful  would  have  left  a  stain  of  dis 
honor  on  the  country.  On  every  question  they  have  raised,  the 
Republican  party,  by  a  patriotic  instinct  based  on  principle  and 
guided  by  an  enlightened  public  conscience,  have  been  right, 
and  being  right  have  been  triumphant. 

The  Republicans  will  make  no  attack  on  the  personal  charac 
ter  of  Mr.  Greeley,  for  they  know  nothing  against  him.  He 
enjoyed  Republican  confidence  and  admiration  in  an  extra 
ordinary  degree  until  he  showed  a  willingness  to  become 


118  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

identified  with  a  party  which,  according  to  his  own  repeated 
declarations,  has  made  an  unpatriotic  and  mischievous  record 
since  1860,  and  is  unworthy  to  be  trusted  on  a  single  question 
of  interest  and  importance  to  the  people  of  the  United  States. 
Let  it  be  the  only  indictment  against  Mr.  Greeley  that  he  has 
consented  to  stand  as  the  candidate  and  representative  of  that 
party ! 

The  Republican  party  will  assuredly  triumph  in  this  cam 
paign  —  triumph  first  by  virtue  of  their  own  merit  and  their 
own  strength,  and  in  part  by  virtue  of  the  unwise  folly  of  Presi 
dent  Grant's  personal  enemies.  The  people  will  not  stop  to 
scan  closely  whether  in  the  proposed  annexation  of  San  Do 
mingo,  or  on  some  other  measure,  the  President  has  been  always 
and  exactly  right.  The  campaign  has  been  carried  by  the  op 
ponents  of  the  Republican  party  beyond  the  discussion  of  par 
ticular  measures,  and  has  become  one  in  which  the  honor  of 
private  and  public  character  is  to  be  defended,  in  which  the 
fame  of  the  chief  hero  of  our  great  civil  war  is  to  be  vindi 
cated  against  the  secret  designs  of  personal  malice  and  the 
coarser  blows  of  political  rancor.  The  fame  of  a  great  man  is 
part  of  the  Nation's  imperishable  treasure,  and  the  Nation  will 
rebuke  those  who  would  attempt  to  sully  it  or  to  destroy  it ! 


SERVICE  IN   THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES.     119 


MR.  ELAINE'S  SEVENTH  AND  LAST  NOMINATION 
AS  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE 
KENNEBEC  DISTRICT. 


[On  the  20th  of  June,  1874,  Mr.  Elaine  received  from  the  Republican  Con 
vention  of  the  Kennebec  district  his  seventh  unanimous  nomination  as  rep 
resentative  in  Congress.  Mr.  Elaine's  response  to  the  nomination  is  given 
below.] 

GENTLEMEN,  —  Permit  me  to  tender  my  profound  acknowl 
edgments  to  the  Republicans  of  the  Kennebec  district  for  their 
continued  manifestation  of  approval  and  regard.  I  have  said, 
very  frequently  in  private,  sometimes  in  public  —  never,  I  trust, 
in  a  boastful  or  vain-glorious  spirit  —  that  I  did  not  believe 
another  Congressional  District  could  be  found  in  the  United 
States  superior  to  the  one  you  empower  me  to  represent,  in  all 
the  elements  of  true  patriotism ;  in  public  and  private  virtue ;  in 
general  intelligence  and  culture,  enforced  through  the  common 
school,  the  academy  and  the  college  ;  in  universal  thrift  and 
comfort  without  large  individual  wealth  ;  in  political  convic 
tion  firm  and  steadfast  beyond  doubt  or  waver,  and  yet  always 
tolerant  towards  those  who  think  differently.  Such  a  constitu 
ency  confer  honor  upon  any  man  whom  they  call  to  represent 
them  in  the  National  councils,  and  I  beg  to  make  known  my 
grateful  appreciation  of  the  trust  and  confidence  which  they 
have  so  long  and  so  generously  reposed  in  me. 

The  resolutions  to  which  you  invite  my  attention  are  so 
generally  acceptable  to  the  people  of  the  district  that  no  issue 
will  be  made  on  the  matters  embraced  in  them.  The  currency 
question  at  one  time  threatening  to  divide  parties,  and,  what 
would  be  far  more  serious,  to  divide  sections,  is  in  process  of  a 
happy  adjustment,  partly  by  wise  and  temperate  enactment 
passed  by  a  large  majority  in  both  branches  of  Congress  and 


120  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

approved  by  the  President,  but  in  a  far  greater  degree  by  the 
operation  of  causes  more  powerful  than  any  legislation  can  be. 
In  these  remarks  I  am,  indeed,  but  repeating,  in  substance, 
the  resolutions  of  your  convention,  and  I  gladly  adopt  as  my 
own  the  leading  declaration  of  the  series  that  "  it  is  the  impera 
tive  duty  of  the  National  Government  to  return  to  specie  pay 
ment  as  soon  as  wise  statesmanship  can  safely  reach  that  result." 
But  while  our  political  opponents  in  Maine  will  not  seriously 
contest  any  position  taken  by  us,  they  have  themselves  chosen 
to  raise  another  issue  upon  which  we  shall  not  be  slow  to  differ 
from  them.  The  Democratic  State  Convention,  in  renominating 
their  candidate  for  Governor,  adopted  with  suggestive  unanimity 
the  following  resolution  as  the  leading  article  in  their  revised 
political  creed :  — 

"Resolved,  That  a  Protective  Tariff  is  a  most  unjust,  unequal,  oppressive 
and  wasteful  mode  of  raising  the  public  revenues.  It  is  one  of  the  most 
pregnant  and  fruitful  sources  of  the  corruptions  in  administration.  We 
therefore,  the  Democracy  of  Maine,  in  convention  assembled,  declare  for 
Free  Trade,  and  in  favor  of  an  unfettered  and  unrestricted  commerce." 

This  advanced  position,  now  formally  taken  by  the  Maine 
Democracy  in  their  State  Convention  for  the  first  time,  receives 
additional  point  and  meaning  from  the  letter  of  their  guberna 
torial  candidate.  Mr.  Titcomb  in  accepting  the  nomination 
specially  approves  this  resolution,  and  intimates  his  endurance 
of  the  lowest  form  of  revenue  tariff,  only  "  until  we  shall  be 
educated  up  to  the  idea  of  equal,  direct,  and  therefore  moder 
ate  taxation  for  the  support  of  Government,  and  until  this 
idea  shall  be  brought  into  practical  operation."  I  have  quoted 
Mr.  Titcomb's  own  words,  and  it  is  evident  that  the  startling 
dogma  to  which  he  commits  himself  is  in  harmony  with  more 
impressive  movements  to  be  made  elsewhere  in  the  same  direc 
tion.  It  is  first  thrown  out  in  Maine  as  an  experiment  on  public 
opinion.  If  there  were  the  slightest  probability  that  the  Demo 
cratic  party,  with  this  avowed  policy,  would  come  into  power, 
the  dangers  ahead  would  be  truly  appalling ;  but  as  no  such 
calamity  impends,  we  may  examine  with  coolness  the  absurdity 
of  the  proposition. 

You  will  observe  that  the  issue  proposed  is  not  the  old  and 
familiar  one  between  those  who  advocate  a  tariff  for  protec- 


FREE  TRADE  DEMOCRACY.  121 

tion  and  those  who  wish  duties  imposed  only  for  revenue. 
That  is  an  issue  as  old  as  the  levying  of  imposts,  and  with 
occasional  exceptions  has  been  determined  largely  by  latitude 
and  longitude,  or  by  the  differing  interests  which  change  of 
section  and  varying  forms  of  industry  have  developed.  But 
the  Maine  Democracy  assume  that  all  tariffs  are  more  or  less 
protective,  and  hence  they  pronounce  for  "  Free  Trade"  pure 
and  simple,  absolute  and  without  qualification,  or,  to  quote  their 
own  words,  for  "  an  unfettered  and  unrestricted  commerce." 

Without  attempting  to  argue  the  question  in  its  relation  to 
the  whole  country,  let  us  see  how  this  new  doctrine  would 
affect  Maine  ?  The  process  would  be  simple,  the  results  readily 
deduced,  the  effect  blighting  and  disastrous  to  the  last  degree. 
For  some  years  past,  the  Federal  Government  has  been  collect 
ing  a  revenue  of  three  hundred  millions  of  dollars — to  deal 
in  round  numbers  —  one-third  from  internal  taxes,  two-thirds 
from  tariff  duties.  It  is  now  proposed  by  the  Maine  Democ 
racy  to  abolish  all  these  duties,  and  have  absolute  "  Free 
Trade  "  with  an  "  unfettered  and  unrestricted  commerce."  In 
other  words,  the  Maine  Democracy  propose  to  raise  the  two 
hundred  millions  of  dollars  in  gold  coin  now  obtained  from 
tariff  duties,  by  "  direct  taxation  "  or  by  a  system  of  "  excises  " 
which  might  prove  even  more  oppressive  than  direct  taxation. 
If  the  tariff  be  abandoned  there  is  no  other  mode  open  under 
the  Constitution  by  which  the  money  can  be  raised  than  the 
two  named,  and  Mr.  Titcomb  declares  for  "  direct  taxation."  If 
the  money  is  to  be  secured  by  direct  taxation,  it  will  be  found 
to  be  Maine's  great  misfortune  that  the  Constitution  requires 
the  tax  to  be  levied  in  proportion  to  population  and  not  accord 
ing  to  wealth.  By  the  ninth  census,  Maine  has  about  one- 
sixtieth  of  the  total  population  of  the  United  States,  and  her 
share  of  two  hundred  millions  of  direct  taxation  would  be 
something  over  three  and  a  quarter  millions  of  dollars  in  gold 
coin  —  the  single  Congressional  District,  whose  constituents  I 
am  addressing,  would  be  called  upon  for  seven  hundred  thou 
sand  dollars.  The  peculiar  hardship  of  raising  taxes  in  this 
way  is  made  manifest  by  the  simple  fact  that  Maine  would  be 
compelled  to  pay  nearly  one-half  as  much  as  Massachusetts, 
while  she  has  but  one-seventh  of  the  property  of  that  highly 


122  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

favored  and  prosperous  Commonwealth.  Properly  to  estimate 
the  exhausting  and  oppressive  nature  of  this  enormous  tax,  you 
have  but  to  consider  that  it  would  be  three  times  as  large  as  the 
present  State  tax,  and  would  necessarily  be  levied  in  addition 
thereto. 

But  if  against  Mr.  Titcomb's  policy  the  direct  tax  were 
avoided,  it  would  be  necessary  to  have  instead  of  it  a  system 
of  excises  as  onerous  and  as  odious  as  human  ingenuity  could 
devise.  A  heavy  internal  tax  would  inevitably  be  levied  on 
all  manufactures,  and  indeed  upon  all  the  products  of  the  field 
and  the  forest,  the  shipyard  and  the  quarry ;  and  every  form 
of  industry  would  be  burdened  and  borne  down  by  the  exac 
tions  of  the  tax-gatherer.  These  grievous  hardships  would  be 
imposed  on  our  own  people,  in  order  that  foreign  countries 
might  have  the  benefit  of  our  markets  for  their  products,  with 
out  duty  and  without  tax.  Our  lumber  interests,  embarrassed 
and  oppressed,  would  be  compelled  to  compete  with  the  untaxed 
products  of  the  Canadian  forest ;  our  manufactures  would  pay 
taxes  for  the  benefit  of  European  fabrics ;  our  ship-building 
would  be  destroyed  by  the  taxation  which  would  render  it 
incapable  of  competing  with  Provincial  bottoms,  and  under 
the  magic  spell  of  Democratic  Free  Trade  our  coasting  and 
lake  commerce,  confined  to  our  own  people  since  the  founda 
tion  of  the  government,  would  be  thrown  open  to  the  whole 
world.  Taxation  in  all  forms  is  one  of  the  burdens  of  civiliza 
tion,  and  instead  of  ameliorating  its  severity  and,  if  possible, 
securing  from  it  such  compensating  advantages  as  wise  legisla 
tion  can  provide,  our  Maine  Democrats  propose  to  make  it  to 
the  last  degree  oppressive  to  our  own  people  and  beneficial  only 
to  the  alien  and  the  enemy. 

To  the  people  of  Maine,  at  this  very  moment,  these  extrava 
gant  declarations  of  the  Democratic  party  have  a  painful  sig 
nificance,  for  it  is  well  known  that  the  authorities  of  Canada 
are  trying  to  negotiate  with  our  Government  a  Reciprocity 
treaty,  which,  like  its  predecessor,  maintains  the  reciprocity  all 
on  one  side.  The  treaty  of  that  name,  which  was  terminated 
in  1866,  was  cruelly  oppressive  to  the  people  of  Maine,  and  in 
flicted  upon  our  State,  during  the  eleven  years  of  its  existence, 
a  loss  of  fifty  millions  of  dollars.  It  presented  the  anomaly  of 


PROPOSED  TREATY  OF  RECIPROCITY.  123 

giving  to  the  Canadians  the  control  in  our  own  markets  of  cer 
tain  leading  articles,  on  terms  far  more  favorable  than  our  own 
people  had  ever  enjoyed.  The  utmost  stretch  of  the  Divine  com 
mand  is  to  love  our  neighbor  as  ourselves,  and  I  can  certainly 
see  nothing  in  personal  duty  or  public  policy  which  should  lead 
us  to  prefer  our  Canadian  neighbors  to  our  own  people. 

The  treaty  of  Reciprocity  now  proposed,  is  understood  to 
include  the  admission  of  Canadian  vessels  to  free  American 
registry,  and  the  full  enjoyment  of  our  coasting  and  lake  trade. 
Thus  the  ship-building  and  commercial  interests  of  the  United 
States,  just  recovering  from  the  terrible  blo\vs  dealt  by  British- 
built  cruisers  during  the  war,  are  again  to  be  struck  down 
by  giving  advantages,  hitherto  undreamed  of,  to  the  ships 
of  the  very  Power  that  inflicted  the  previous  injury.  The 
Democratic  party  of  Maine  have  pledged  themselves,  in  their 
State  Convention,  to  the  policy  that  includes  this  disastrous 
attack  upon  the  interests  of  our  State,  and  their  candidate  for 
Governor  has  fully  committed  himself  to  the  extreme  doctrine 
announced  by  the  Convention. 

The  form  of  Reciprocity  proposed  by  the  Government  of  the 
Dominion  of  Canada  lacks  every  element  of  the  seductive 
title  by  which  it  is  sought  to  commend  it  to  our  people. 
What  is  it  ?  Simply  this  —  that  if  the  United  States  will  agree 
to  admit  certain  Canadian  products,  free  of  duty,  Canada  in  turn 
will  agree  to  admit  certain  American  fabrics  free  of  duty.  But 
the  class  of  men  to  be  benefited,  and  the  class  to  be  injured,  in 
the  United  States,  are  entirely  distinct  and  separate,  having 
nothing  in  common,  either  in  locality,  industry  or  investment. 
To  compensate  for  the  surrender  of  one  interest  by  the  advance 
ment  of  another  has  no  more  element  of  reciprocal  justice  in  it 
than  for  A  to  take  a  pair  of  horses  from  B,  because  C  took  pos 
session  of  a  yoke  of  oxen  belonging  to  D.  To  illustrate  :  If  the 
United  States  will  agree  to  admit  Canadian  vessels  to  American 

o 

registry  and  the  coasting-trade,  Canada  will  admit  straw  hats, 
mule  harness  and  rat-traps  free  of  duty.  In  this  you  will  ob 
serve  that  Canada  gets  the  full  advantage  both  ways,  while  the 
United  States,  for  a  possible  enlargement  of  petty  trade,  consents 
to  subordinate  and  sacrifice  an  interest  that  represents  our  dis 
tinctive  nationality,  in  all  climes  and  upon  all  seas  —  an  interest 


124  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

that  has  given  more  and  asked  less  of  the  Government  than  any 
other  of  similar  magnitude  ;  an  interest  more  essentially  Amer 
ican,  in  the  highest  and  best  sense,  than  any  other  which  falls 
under  the  Legislative  power  of  the  Government,  and  which 
to-day  asks  only  to  be  left  where  the  founders  of  the  Republic 
placed  it  nearly  a  century  ago. 

Against  the  whole  policy  of  adjusting  revenue  questions  by 
the  treaty-making  power,  I  desire  to  enter  on  behalf  of  my 
constituents  an  emphatic  protest.  The  Constitution  gives  to 
the  House  of  Representatives  the  sole  and  exclusive  right 
to  originate  Bills  of  Revenue,  and  this  great  power  should  be 
kept  where  it  can  be  controlled  by  the  direct  and  unbiassed 
vote  of  the  people.  It  may  well  be  that  sundry  articles  of 
Canadian  product  should  be  admitted  free,  or  with  diminished 
duty :  it  may  well  be,  also,  that  Canada  would  find  it  advanta 
geous  to  admit  certain  articles  from  us  free  of  duty.  Let  each 
country  decide  the  question  for  itself,  and  avoid  the  "  log-roll 
ing"  feature  of  a  treaty,  in  which  it  will  inevitably  happen  that 
certain  interests  will  be  sacrificed  in  order  that  others  may  be 
promoted.  Let  us  simply  place  Canada  on  the  same  basis  with 
other  foreign  countries,  —  taxing  her  products,  or  admitting 
them  free,  according  to  our  own  judgment  of  the  interest  of  our 
own  revenue,  and  the  pursuits  and  needs  of  our  own  people  — 
always  bearing  in  mind,  that  in  governmental  as  in  family 
matters,  "  charity  begins  at  home,"  and  that  "  he  who  provideth 
not  for  those  of  his  own  house,  is  worse  than  an  infidel." 


MUNICIPAL  DEBT  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.  125 


MUNICIPAL    DEBT    IN    THE    UNITED   STATES. 


[An  address  delivered  by  James  G.  Blaine  before  the  Northern  Wisconsin 
Agricultural  and  Mechanical  Association,  at  their  annual  fair  held  at  Oshkosh, 
Wisconsin,  Oct.  1,  1874.] 

MR.  PRESIDENT  AND  GENTLEMEN  OF  THE  ASSOCIATION,  — 
When  I  accepted  your  cordial  invitation  to  be  present  to-day, 
it  was  with  the  distinct  understanding  that  the  formal  address 
of  the  occasion  should  be  delivered  by  another,  and  that  any 
thing  I  might  have  to  say  would  be  secondary  and  subordinate. 
This  arrangement  was  changed  a  short  time  since  without  con 
sulting  me ;  and  if  this  large  audience  shall  feel  disappointed 
with  the  result,  as  I  fear  they  may,  they  must  not  lay  the  charge 
at  my  door,  but  hold  the  officers  of  the  Association  responsible 
in  such  exemplary  damages  as  a  good  Wisconsin  sense  of  jus 
tice  may  impose. 

I  believe  by  modern  usage  an  address  before  an  agricultural 
society  is  expected  to  leave  agriculture  severely  alone  —  on  the 
very  sound  and  sensible  presumption  that  the  audience  have 
more  knowledge  on  that  subject  than  the  speaker  is  likely 
to  possess.  In  my  own  case,  certainly,  I  am  ready  to  admit 
the  full  force  of  such  presumption  ;  for  although  I  was  born 
and  reared  in  an  agricultural  community  in  Western  Pennsyl 
vania,  and  have  lived  all  the  years  of  my  maturer  life  in  the 
best  agricultural  district  of  Maine,  I  do  not  claim  such  practi 
cal  knowledge  of  the  great  art  and  science  as  would  enable 
me  to  give  one  word  of  needed  instruction  to  the  assemblage 
which  I  have  now  the  honor  to  address. 

I  shall,  therefore,  for  the  brief  period  that  I  may  claim  your 
attention,  confine  myself  to  a  subject  of  interest  to  you  as 
American  citizens  —  and  indeed,  I  may  add,  of  especial  im 
portance  to  you  as  farmers,  representing  as  you  do  so  great 


126  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

a  proportion  of  the  real  property  of  the  country,  and  standing 
as  you  do  in  the  attitude  of  responsibility,  both  present  and 
ultimate,  which  that  relation  to  the  property  of  the  country 
implies  and  imposes. 

I  shall  speak  to  you  of  our  public  debt  —  not  mainly  of  what 
we  understand  as  our  national  debt  —  but  of  all  those  forms  of 
State  and  municipal  obligation  which  involve  direct  taxation 
upon  the  people. 

Public  debt  is  one  of  the  rapid  out-growths  of  modern  civili 
zation.  In  its  present  form  it  was  certainly  unknown  among 
the  ancients,  though  Cicero  says'  that  the  Roman  Provinces  in 
Asia  were  accustomed  to  borrow ;  and  Livy,  in  a  passage  some 
what  obscure,  speaks  of  a  loan  once  contracted  by  Rome  to 
meet  the  expenses  of  the  Punic  wars.  These  exceptional  ref 
erences,  however,  only  prove  the  rule  that  the  use  of  credit  was 
not  one  of  the  recognized  resources  of  ancient  nations.  The 
large  accumulation  of  treasure  made  by  some  powerful  monarchs 
of  the  olden  time  is  another  proof  that  credit  was  not  used, 
and  that  loss  resulting  from  the  idleness  of  money  was  not 
recognized  or  appreciated  as  it  is  by  the  keener  calculations 
of  modern  times.  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  had  at  one  time  in 
his  treasury  what  would  be  equivalent  to  8400,000,000  in  our 
coin.  The  Roman  Emperor,  Tiberius,  left  2,700,000,000  sester 
ces  (8110,000,000)  to  his  successor,  Caligula,  who  obligingly 
spent  the  whole  of  it  in  a  single  year.  These  sums,  though 
they  do  not  seem  large  in  comparison  with  the  aggregates  of 
the  national  debts  of  to-day,  yet  represent  in  their  purchasing 
power  in  that  era  a  larger  accumulation  of  actual  money  than 
the  treasury  of  any  nation  has  contained  at  one  time  since  the 
dawn  of  Christianity.  The  first  Napoleon,  among  modern 
rulers,  imitated  on  a  diminished  scale  this  barbaric  accumula 
tion  of  treasure,  nominally  belonging  to  the  State,  but  really 
subject  to  the  individual  will  and  caprice  of  the  sovereign,  and 
generally  used  for  purposes  which  would  not  make  a  creditable 
appearance  in  official  budgets  or  regular  appropriation  bills. 

Nearly  sixteen  hundred  years  of  the  Christian  era  had  passed 
before  nations  learned  the  art  of  borrowing  as  we  now  under 
stand  it.  Holland  and  Spain  had  perhaps  in  the  sixteenth  cen 
tury  the  first  regularly  organized  national  debt,  though  it  is 


MUNICIPAL  DEBT  IN  THE   UNITED  STATES.  127 

claimed  that  the  French  Rentes,  the  national  security  still  so 
well  known  and  so  popular  among  that  people,  originated  as 
early  as  1375,  in  the  reign  of  Charles  the  Fifth.  I  am  disposed 
to  think,  however,  that  it  was,  in  a  very  irregular,  shadowy,  and 
irresponsible  shape,  running  over  only  from  year  to  year  accord 
ing  to  chance,  and  not  existing  as  a  stated  loan  with  stipulated 
and  regular  allowance  of  interest. 

Undoubtedly  the  debts  of  Holland  and  Spain,  contracted 
largely  in  their  wars  with  each  other,  the  one  attempting  to 
inflict,  and  the  other  successfully  resisting,  a  great  tyranny, 
were  the  first  that  became  regularly  funded,  with  periodical 
payment  of  interest,  the  resources  for  which  were  derived  from 
taxation.  So  sorely  were  these  taxes  felt  at  Amsterdam,  as  an 
accurate  historian  tells  us,  that  it  was  a  common  saying,  that 
whoever  bought  so  much  as  a  fish  paid  for  it  once  to  the  seller, 
and  six  times  to  the  State.  In  Spain  at  that  time  the  receipts 
of  the  precious  metals  from  her  South-American  colonies  were 
so  large  that  the  debt  was  not  so  oppressive  as  the  corresponding 
obligation  in  Holland. 

Towards  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century,  England 
emerging  from  the  struggle  for  Constitutional  Liberty  which 
forever  dethroned  the  Stuarts,  formally  entered  for  the  first 
time  the  list  of  National  debtors.  It  was  in  1694  that  she 
borrowed  the  initial  pound  sterling  of  that  debt  which  in  one 
hundred  and  twenty  years,  at  the  close  of  her  contest  with 
Napoleon,  reached  the  enormous  aggregate  of  nine  hundred 
and  two  million  pounds  (£902,000,000) — over  four  thousand 
five  hundred  millions  of  dollars  ($4,500,000,000)  —  constituting 
at  that  time  a  burden  upon  England  as  great  as  a  debt  of  twelve 
thousand  millions  of  dollars  ($12,000,000,000)  would  represent 
to-day.  From  the  date  of  England's  becoming  a  borrower,  debt 
seemed  to  be  a  contagion  among  the  nations  —  and  though  less 
than  two  centuries  have  elapsed  since  England's  debt  began, 
there  is  now  scarcely  a  civilized  country  on  the  face  of  the 
globe  whose  people  have  not  mortgaged  the  future  for  the 
benefit  of  the  past  and  the  present.  The  British  dependencies 
in  Asia  and  Australia  and  the  "  far  off  Isles  of  the  sea  "  are 
heavily  in  debt  to  the  bankers  of  the  mother  country ;  the  civil 
ized  and  semi-civilized  governments  that  skirt  the  shores  of  the 


123  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

Mediterranean  are  mortgaged  to  the  money-lenders  of  Europe ; 
the  nations  of  South  America  without  exception  have  all  trodden 
the  same  weary  road ;  while  every  European  power  from  Russia 
to  Portugal  groans  under  the  weight  of  its  national  obligations. 
Mr.  Dudley  Baxter,  who  is  a  recognized  authority  on  ques 
tions  of  this  character,  gives  the  aggregate  populations  of  the 
borrowing  nations  of  the  world  as  in  excess  of  six  hundred 
million  souls  (600,000,000) — and  the  aggregate  of  national 
debts  owed  by  them  as  equal  to  twenty  thousand  millions  of 
dollars  (120,000,000,000) —with  an  annual  interest  charge  of 
more  than  eight  hundred  millions  of  dollars  ($800,000,000). 
It  is  a  melancholy  thought  that  this  almost  incalculable  sum  of 
money  was  borrowed  and  expended,  not  to  promote  the  ends 
of  peace,  not  to  develop  agriculture  or  the  mechanic  arts,  not  to 
build  great  highways  for  commerce  and  trade,  not  to  improve 
harbors  and  the  navigation  of  rivers,  not  to  found  institutions 
of  learning  or  of  charity  or  of  mercy,  not  to  elevate  the  stand 
ard  of  culture  among  the  masses,  not  for  any  or  all  of  these 
laudable  objects,  but  for  the  waste,  the  cruelty,  the  untold 
agonies  of  war.  The  vast  mass  of  this  prodigious  sum-total 
not  only  went  for  war,  but  for  wars  of  ambition  and  conquest 
in  which  the  fate  of  reigning  dynasties  was  the  stake,  and 
not  the  well-being  of  the  people  or  even  the  aggrandizement  of 
the  nation  itself  in  the  higher  and  better  sense.  In  our  own 
country  we  have  had  four  wars  —  and  with  the  exception  of 
that  with  Mexico,  they  may  certainly  and  fairly  be  called 
defensive  on  our  part  —  for  they  were  assuredly  wars  essen 
tial  to  our  national  existence  and  independence.  But  still 
this  fact  makes  us  no  exception  to  the  rest  of  the  world,  and 
war,  however  unavoidable  in  our  case,  was  nevertheless  the 
direct  cause  of  our  national  burden.  Our  total  national  in 
debtedness  to-day  is  twenty-one  hundred  and  forty  millions 
of  dollars  ($2,140,000,000)  ;  and  of  this  great  sum  sixty-four 
millions  ($64,000,000)  given  towards  the  construction  of  a  rail 
road  to  the  Pacific  is  all  that  was  incurred  for  works  of  peace. 
The  remainder  was  expended  in  the  long  and  bloody  and  deso 
lating  struggle  in  which  secession  was  resisted  and  destroyed, 
and  in  which  we  won  the  privilege  of  continuing  to  exist  as 
the  United  States  of  America. 


MUNICIPAL  DEBT  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.  129 

But  in  regard  to  the  National  debt,  whatever  vain  regrets  we 
may  indulge  over  the  loss  of  so  much  treasure  and  the  fearful 
sacrifice  of  that  which  is  beyond  earthly  price,  we  have  this  to 
console  —  that  the  war  which  gave  rise  to  it  was  unavoidable, 
apparently  forecast  as  part  of  the  great  experience  of  bitterness 
and  of  blood  through  which  it  was  our  destiny  as  a  nation  to 
pass,  and  that  out  of  its  sorrowful  depths  we  have  emerged  a 
regenerated  people,  doing  justice  to  a  race  long  oppressed,  edu 
cating  ourselves  to  higher  standards  of  liberty  and  of  law,  and 
having  our  feet  henceforth  shod  with  the  preparation  of  the 
Gospel  of  Peace. 

Leaving  the  consideration  of  our  National  debt  as  an  obliga 
tion  not  within  our  discretion,  except  as  to  the  best  and  most 
honorable  means  of  reducing  and  discharging  it,  I  invite  your 
attention  to  those  less  observed,  but  even  more  burdensome 
forms  of  obligation  contracted  by  States,  counties,  cities  and 
smaller  municipalities,  and  contracted  oftentimes,  I  may  add, 
with  an  extravagance  and  prodigality  that  seem  to  invite  calam 
ity.  With  the  keen  watchfulness  of  opposing  political  organi 
zations  in  this  country,  with  the  sharp  criticism  by  press  and 
people  of  all  that  may  be  done  or  left  undone  by  Congress,  no 
oppressive  increase  of  our  National  debt  can  be  anticipated  ex 
cept  under  the  exigency  of  war  —  and  should  that  come,  as  in 
God's  good  Providence  I  trust  it  never  may,  no  limit  can  be 
assigned  to  the  additional  burden  that  may  be  placed  upon  us. 
But  the  causes  which  lead  to  an  increase  of  State  debt  and  to 
so  great  an  enlargement  of  municipal  obligation  are  not  so  open 
to  public  observation,  do  not  elicit  the  sharp  controversy  and 
discussion  which  always  go  so  far  to  insure  safety  in  the  final 
result,  and  the  consequence  is  that  many  communities,  before 
they  stop  to  consider,  find  themselves  laboring  under  a  burden 
of  debt,  which  if  not  absolutely  discouraging  is  certainly 
oppressive. 

In  reflecting  on  this  subject  you  will  observe  at  the  very 
outset  that  our  form  of  Government  gives  extraordinary 
opportunities  for  the  use  of  public  credit.  We  have  first 
the  General  Government,  which  borrows  on  the  faith  of  the 
Nation ;  next  the  State  Government,  which  borrows  on  the  faith 
of  the  State ;  next  the  county,  which  borrows  on  the  faith  of 


130  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

the  county ;  next  the  city  or  town,  which  borrows  on  the  faith 
of  the  municipality.  When  this  whole  series  of  credits,  four 
in  number,  are  used  as  they  often  are,  nay,  used  almost 
everywhere,  the  quadruplicate  burden  falls  heavily  on  the 
shoulders  of  the  people.  The  four  taxes  operate  at  last  on 
the  same  man,  and  each  piece  of  property  in  some  way  con 
tributes  its  share  towards  satisfying  the  demand.  I  do  not 
think  there  is  any  other  nation  in  which  the  power  to  incur 
debt  has  been  so  extended  as  with  us  ;  in  which  the  same  com 
munities  may  be  made  to  assume  public  obligations  in  so  many 
relations  —  and  each  one  operating  for  the  time  in  a  somewhat 
independent  sphere,  the  tendency  of  each  is  to  enlarge,  regard 
less  of  the  dimensions  and  demands  of  the  others.  When  the 
city  is  pledging  its  credit  it  seems  to  forget  that  a  heavy  debt  is 
already  upon  the  county  of  which  it  forms  an  integral  part; 
the  county  freely  incurs  debt  without  apparently  remembering 
that  every  estate  in  it  is  already  encumbered  by  a  direct  tax  to 
pay  the  interest  on  a  debt  of  the  State ;  and  the  State  too  often 
makes  lavish  use  of  its  credit  without  pausing  to  reflect  that 
every  one  of  its  citizens  is  already  burdened  by  the  tax  which 
he  is  paying  to  liquidate  the  debt  of  the  Nation.  When  in 
the  end,  Nation  and  State  and  county  and  city  have  each  and 
all  imposed  their  burdens,  the  citizen  finds  that  while  the  tax  is 
increased  fourfold  the  property  to  meet  it  has  not  experienced 
a  similar  development  and  growth.  Our  power  in  this  country 
to  cumulate  our  burdens  may  certainly  be  regarded  as  peculiar 
to  ourselves.  I  am  aware  that  the  large  cities  of  Europe  have 
debts  of  their  own ;  so  have  the  separate  cantons  of  Switzer 
land  ;  so  have  the  departments  of  France  for  limited  and  speci 
fied  purposes ;  so  have  the  minor  German  states  ;  but  still  it  is 
true  that  our  county,  city,  town  and  township  facility  for  con 
tracting  debt  is  practically  unknown  among  the  nations  of 
Europe.  Our  marvelous  capacity  in  this  regard  is  the  one' 
achievement  of  our  Republican  civilization  of  which  I  think  we 
have  the  least  occasion  to  be  proud. 

There  are  in  the  United  States  sixteen  cities  having  each  a 
population  exceeding  one  hundred  thousand  (100,000),  and  an 
aggregate  population  of  four  and  a  half  millions  (4,500,000). 
Each  is  a  city  with  special  advantages  which  cannot  be  taken 


MUNICIPAL  DEBT  IN  THE   UNITED  STATES.  131 

from  it ;  each  in  the  language  of  the  clay  has  a  large  future ; 
each  has  abundant  wealth  and  still  larger  prospective  resources. 
They  include  when  taken  collectively,  the  trade  of  Atlantic  and 
Pacific,  of  Gulf  and  Lake  coasts,  besides  all  the  great  interior 
rivers  of  the  continent  and  the  converging  traffic  of  thousands 
of  miles  of  railway.  Surely  one  would  think  that  each  might 
bide  its  time  and  patiently  await  its  well-assured  prosperity 
without  being  compelled  to  borrow  largely,  in  some  cases  almost 
recklessly,  of  the  future.  And  yet  taking  these  sixteen  cities 
together  we  find  their  municipal  debts  amount  to  three  hundred 
and  fifty  millions  of  dollars  ($350,000,000),  being  eighty  dollars 
per  capita  for  their  entire  population,  and  presenting  in  the 
aggregate  an  amount  which  prior  to  our  war  experience  would 
have  been  considered  a  large  burden  for  the  Nation.  It  would 
be  a  gross  injustice,  however,  to  leave  the  inference  that  the 
average  debt  of  these  cities  is  over  twenty  millions  of  dollars, 
for  indeed  a  single  city,  the  commercial  metropolis  of  the  nation, 
presents  a  debt  of  nearly  one-third  of  the  entire  amount,  while 
several  of  the  cities  on  the  list  have  debts  of  comparatively 
insignificant  proportions. 

The  class  of  cities  next  in  size  to  those  referred  to,  those 
having  each  a  population  exceeding  fifty  thousand  (50,000) 
and  less  than  one  hundred  thousand  (100,000)  are  twelve  in 
number  —  having  an  aggregate  population  of  about  seven  hun 
dred  and  fifty  thousand  (750,000).  Their  total  debt  does  not 
exceed  thirty  millions  of  dollars  ($30,000,000),  which  gives 
about  forty  dollars  per  capita  for  the  whole  list. 

Taking  the  next  class  of  cities,  having  each  a  population 
exceeding  twenty  thousand  (20,000)  and  less  than  fifty  thou 
sand  (50,000),  I  find  there  are  in  all  some  fifty-three  (53)  in  the 
United  States  with  a  total  population  of  something  over  a  million 
and  a  half.  Their  total  debt  cannot  be  less,  I  think,  than  sev 
enty-five  millions  of  dollars  ($75,000,000),  or  fifty  dollars  per 
capita. 

Interested  as  I  have  been  in  making  these  investigations,  I 
included  one  more  class  within  the  scope  of  my  inquiries,  and 
took  the  cities  and  towns  throughout  the  United  States,  having 
populations  between  ten  and  twenty  thousand  each,  —  a  list 
which  I  found  to  include  in  all  one  hundred  and  five  cities  and 


132  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

towns,  whose  aggregate  population  amounts  to  nearly  fourteen 
hundred  thousand  (1,400,000),  and  whose  aggregate  debt  is 
something  over  thirty-five  millions  ($35,000,000),  or  about 
twenty-two  dollars  per  capita  for  the  whole. 

Adding  these  four  classes  together,  it  presents  a  table  of  the 
cities  and  towns  of  the  United  States  having  over  ten  thousand 
(10,000)  inhabitants  each  —  of  which  there  are  in  all  one  hun 
dred  and  eighty-six  (186) — with  an  aggregate  population  ex 
ceeding  seven  millions  (7,000,000),  and  total  municipal  debt  of 
about  four  hundred  and  ninety  millions  (8490,000,000). 

The  towns  having  less  than  ten  thousand  inhabitants  each,  I 
have  not  been  able  to  classify  with  the  approximate  accuracy  of 
those  I  have  given,  but  I  feel  well  assured  that  the  aggregate 
of  their  debts  would  reach  eighty  millions  of  dollars  ($80,000,- 
000),  —  making  the  total  municipal  debt  of  the  country  about 
five  hundred  and  seventy  millions  ($570,000,000). 

Added  to  these  municipal  debts  proper,  we  find  the  county; 
debts  of  the  entire  country  amounting  to  about  one  hundred 
and  eighty  millions  ($180,000,000),  and  the  State  debts  to 
about  three  hundred  and  ninety  millions  ($390,000,000),— 
making  a  grand  aggregate  of  eleven  hundred  and  forty  millions 
(81,140,000,000)  of  public  debt  of  States,  counties,  cities,  and 
towns. 

This  sum-total  is  nearly  three  hundred  millions  of  dollars 
greater  than  that  given  in  the  census  of  1870.  The  addition, 
however,  has  not  been  made  within  the  four  succeeding  years, 
but  a  part  is  due,  I  think,  to  incomplete  returns  made  to  the 
census  officials.  I  have  been  at  some  pains,  by  original  investi 
gation  and  inquiry,  to  ascertain  the  aggregates  of  State,  county, 
and  municipal  indebtedness ;  and  while  I  do  not  assume  to  give 
details,  or  vouch  for  absolute  accuracy,  I  think  the  totals  I  have 
given  may  well  be  taken  as  approximately  correct  statements. 
The  difficulty  in  attaining  perfect  exactness  results  from  the 
imperfect  manner  in  which  statistics  are  gathered  in  the  several 
States.  I  have  found,  indeed,  very  few  States  where  the  officers 
are  authorized  by  law  to  keep  a  record  of  public  debt,  except 
the  direct  obligations  of  the  State.  In  Massachusetts,  where 
great  attention  is  paid  to  accuracy  of  statistics,  I  have  been 
enabled  to  obtain  precise  information,  and  the  total  amount 


MUNICIPAL  DEBT  IX  THE  UNITED  STATES.  133 

of  State,  county,  and  municipal  debts,  shows  a  grand  total  of 
ninety-seven  and  a  half  millions  (197,500,000),  subject  to  a 
sinking-fund  deduction  of  eleven  millions  ($11,000,000)  — 
leaving  eighty-six  and  a  half  millions  (186,500,000)  as  the 
net  debt  of  that  State.  A  very  large  burden  it  would  seem ; 
and  yet  such  is  the  wealth  of  Massachusetts  that  the  entire 
debt  does  not  constitute  more  than  four  per  cent  of  its  valua 
tion,  and  probably  not  over  two  and  a  half  per  cent  of  its 
actual  wealth. 

The  State  debts  in  many  instances,  both  in  the  former  and 
the  latter  times,  have  been  contracted  without  due  caution, 
and  as  a  natural  consequence  the  money  realized  from  borrowing 
has  been  oftentimes  expended  with  an  extravagance  which 
would  hardly  be  tolerated  in  the  disbursement  of  moneys  raised 
by  current  taxation.  I  do  not  desire  to  make  my  remark  so 
sweeping  as  to  include  those  States  where  loans  have  always 
been  negotiated  with  care,  and  the  receipts  expended  with  econ 
omy.  But  I  venture  the  assertion,  based  on  careful  scrutiny 
of  the  facts,  that,  taking  the  aggregate  of  State  debts  as  they 
stand  to-day,  there  has  not  been  realized  on  the  average  fifty 
cents  of  permanent  value  for  each  dollar  raised  and  expended. 
In  some  cases  the  improvidence  has  led  to  even  worse  results 
than  this ;  and  I  think,  taking  the  country  as  a  whole,  there  is 
no  form  of  public  debt  in  which  so  much  has  been  given  and 
so  little  received  as  in  the  direct  obligations  of  the  States.  I 
am  glad,  however,  to  be  able  to  congratulate  the  citizens  of  this 
rich  and  prosperous  Commonwealth,  that  their  debt  is  very 
small,  and  is  rapidly  decreasing,  and  that  in  consequence  there 
of  an  inexpensive  government  and  light  taxation  are  their  com 
forting  prospects  for  the  future.  What  is  true  of  your  State,  is 
no  less  true  of  your  sister  States  of  this  great  section.  The 
seven  States  of  the  North-West,  with  an  aggregate  popula 
tion  of  more  than  eleven  millions  (11,000,000),  and  property 
worth  over  eight  thousand  millions  of  dollars  (18,000,000,000) 
have  a  combined  State  debt  of  less  than  twenty-five  millions 
($25,000,000).  If  these  Commonwealths  had  exercised  as  pru 
dent  a  care  against  county  and  municipal  debt,  they  would 
present  to-day  the  most  flattering  balance-sheet,  I  venture  to 
say,  of  any  civilized  communities  on  the  face  of  the  globe. 


134:  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

In  regard  to  the  aggregate  municipal  debt  of  the  country,  it  is 
not  of  course  to  be  inferred  that  it  could  all  have  been  wisely 
avoided.  Credit,  prudently  used  and  safely  guarded,  is  one  of 
the  great  engines  of  modern  civilization  and  advancement,  and 
with  municipal  governments  its  use  at  times  seems  imperatively 
demanded.  In  many  cases  the  public  health  has  required  that 
debt  be  contracted  for  supplies  of  pure  water  and  for  systems 
of  drainage  and  sewerage,  and  occasionally  for  other  forms  of 
public  improvement  essential  to  the  growth  of  the  community. 
But  in  the  main,  I  think  our  cities  have  been  too  ready  to  draw 
on  the  future,  too  ready  to  pledge  the  "  lives  and  fortunes  "  of 
posterity  to  the  payment  of  a  debt  which  the  generation  in 
curring  it  is  unable  to  discharge.  Expensive  municipal  build 
ings,  loan  of  credit  to  outside  enterprises,  not  needed  and  often 
visionary,  have  led  in  some  large  cities  to  a  growth  of  debt  for 
which  there  is  no  corresponding  return  of  pecuniary  profit,  and 
no  adequate  advantage  in  any  form.  These  debts  have  in  many 
cases  been  contracted  carelessly  and  without  due  reflection. 
The  old  adage  that  what  is  "  everybody's  business  is  nobody's 
business "  is  nowhere  more  applicable  than  in  the  general  ad 
ministration  of  municipal  affairs  in  our  large  cities.  It  is  so 
easy  to  obtain  Legislative  authority  to  contract  debts ;  it  is 
so  easy  to  sell  a  good  city  bond  to  the  capitalist  who  highly 
prizes  such  forms  of  security;  it  is  so  easy  to  incur  a  debt  to  be 
taken  care  of  by  those  who  come  after  us,  instead  of  levying  a 
severe  tax  to  be  paid  by  ourselves ;  in  short,  it  is  so  easy  and 
alas  so  natural  to  have  a  smooth,  pleasant  time  to-day,  thinking 
little  of  the  ills  that  may  overtake  us  on  the  morrow.  This  ready, 
convenient,  lazy  method  of  shifting  the  burdens  of  to-day,  has 
tended  to  precipitate  on  many  of  our  most  favored  and  promis 
ing  cities  a  load  of  taxation,  which  hampers  business,  oppresses 
property,  hinders  accessions  of  population,  and  thus  retards  the 
very  growth  which  the  debt  was  contracted  to  stimulate. 

Another  evil  results  from  the  growth  of  municipal  debt 
which  I  think  has  not  been  sufficiently  observed.  I  mean  the 
facility  which  such  debts  give  to  the  capitalist  for  a  safe  and 
profitable  investment  of  his  surplus  —  thus  saving  him  from 
the  trouble,  and  depriving  the  community  of  the  advantage,  of 
his  embarking  in  active  business.  Take  for  instance  a  promi- 


MUNICIPAL  DEBT  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.  135 

nent.and  wealthy  city  —  and  I  do  not  refer  to  any  particular 
one  —  and  this  you  will  find  to  be  its  history  and  experience  at 
one  or  more  periods  of  its  prosperous  career,,  Its  banks  and 
other  places  of  deposit  are  full  to  overflowing  of  money  owned 
by  its  leading  capitalists,  waiting  for  an  opportunity  to  invest. 
They  are  carefully  examining  into  different  branches  of  manu 
facture,  into  improvement  of  real  estate  by  blocks  of  fine  stores, 
into  the  outlook  for  a  new  railroad,  into  a  project  for  a  new 
line  of  steam-packets  —  all  or  any  one  of  which  would  greatly 
contribute  to  the  development  and  growth  of  the  city  in  ques 
tion.  At  the  moment  these  capitalists  are  about  to  invest  their 
money  in  some  one  of  these  channels  of  gain  to  themselves,  and 
profit  to  the  community,  another  set  of  gentlemen  having  great 
influence  with  the  municipal  officers,  commit  the  city  to  some 
new  scheme  of  improvement.  From  three  to  five  millions  of 
first-class  seven  per  cent  bonds  are  placed  on  the  market  —  and 
our  capitalists  suddenly  conclude  that  nothing  presenting  so 
little  risk  and  so  clean  a  margin  of  profit  can  be  found  in  manu 
factures,  or  blocks  of  stores,  or  railway  shares,  or  steam  naviga 
tion  companies,  and  they  accordingly  invest  their  odd  millions 
in  city  bonds,  and  devote  themselves  thenceforth  to  the  enno 
bling  occupation  of  cutting  coupons. 

Though  the  foregoing  purports  to  be  a  single  case,  it  illus 
trates  a  practical  truth  worthy  to  be  remembered,  viz. :  that  too 
much  of  the  surplus  capital  has  been  invited  into  bonds  of  this 
kind,  and  is  thereby  removed  from  active  participation  in  the 
business  projects  of  the  country.  These  projects  are  thus  left 
too  largely  to  the  control  of  men  who  have  great  enterprise, 
but  who  are  hampered  for  lack  of  capital  and  are  constantly 
encountering  the  evils  of  a  too  widely  extended  credit.  It  may 
be  an  extravagant  assertion,  and  yet  I  had  almost  said,  that  if 
the  hundreds  of  millions  of  capital  that  have  been  hidden  away 
in  the  municipal  bonds  of  the  country  had  been,  by  the  absence 
of  such  opportunities  for  investment,  forced  into  business  enter 
prises,  the  country  would  be  so  much  the  richer  that  a  great 
number  of  the  objects  for  which  the  municipal  debts  were  con 
tracted  could  have  been  accomplished  by  the  mere  process  of 
taxation  on  the  vastly  superior  amount  of  property  that  would 
have  been  thus  created. 


136  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

It  is  also  a  matter  for  serious  consideration  whether  these 
large  municipal  loans  have  not  had  a  prejudicial  effect  on  the 
price  of  money,  tending  continually  to  create  stringency  in 
the  money  market  and  raise  the  rate  of  interest  to  the  borrower 
and  the  business  man.  There  is  a  loud  outcry  in  all  quarters 
against  the  high  rates  charged  for  money,  and  yet  if  States  and 
great  cities  will  flood  the  markets  with  their  obligations  at 
seven  per  cent  and  oftentimes  at  a  higher  rate  of  interest,  how 
can  any  borrower  on  mere  individual  credit  expect  or  hope  to 
negotiate  loans  at  the  old-fashioned  six  per  cent  rate,  which 
in  so  many  sections  of  the  country  was  formerly  the  rule.  It 
will  inevitably  happen  that  the  individual  citizen  will  pay  from 
one  to  four  per  cent  higher  for  money  than  the  prosperous  city  ; 
and  if  the  city  absorbs  the  great  surplus  of  capital  by  its  tempt 
ing  rates  and  perfect  security,  the  individual  is  necessarily  sub 
jected  to  the  squeezing  process  when  he  wants  money  on  his 
own  note,  and  he  is  then  made  to  feel  the  double  burden  of 
paying  increased  taxes  to  support  the  city  loan,  the  negotiation 
of  which  had  already  increased  his  burdens  by  raising  the  rate 
of  interest  on  the  money  he  was  compelled  to  borrow  in  the 
prosecution  of  his  private  business. 

If  then  we  have  not  exercised  sufficient  care  and  circum 
spection  in  regard  to  incurring  State,  county  and  municipal 
debt  in  the  past,  what  is  the  remedy  ?  I  answer,  first  arid  fore 
most,  an  awakened,  active,  well-balanced  public  judgment, 
which  will  suggest  and  enforce  a  wise  caution  and  conserva 
tive  course  on  this  subject.  I  have  no  patent  remedy  to 
propose,  and  yet  I  venture  to  suggest  that  the  Legislatures 
of  many  States  have  altogether  too  large  a  power  to  create 
debt  without  referring  the  subject  to  the  people  for  their  pri 
mary  consideration.  Perhaps  I  may  entertain  a  pre-judgment 
on  this  particular  phase  of  the  question  in  favor  of  the  stringent 
provision  in  the  Constitution  of  my  own  State,  where  the 
Legislature  has  no  power  to  incur  a  dollar's  debt  except  for 
war  purposes,  under  the  pressure  of  actual  danger,  and  where 
an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  proposed  by  two-thirds  of 
the  Legislature  and  then  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  is 
a  prerequisite  for  pledging  the  credit  of  the  State  for  any  other 
purpose  whatever. 


MUNICIPAL  DEBT  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.          137 

It  might  also  be  a  wise  and  salutary  provision  to  define  in  State 
Constitutions  the  precise  ends  for  which  municipal  credit  should 
be  used,  limiting  those  uses  to  proper  and  restricted  objects, 
and  forbidding  in  any  event  the  creation  of  a  debt  beyond  a 
specified  percentage  of  the  official  valuation  of  the  city  or  town. 
At  the  same  time  a  judicious  safeguard  should  be  provided 
against  the  overlapping  of  county  debts,  so  that  while  the  town 
is  guarding  its  credit  with  care  it  shall  not  be  involved  in  the 
embarrassment  caused  by  an  extravagant  extension  of  the  credit 
of  the  county. 

Finally,  as  a  governing  principle,  it  would  be  well  to  apply 
to  all  State,  county  and  municipal  debts,  the  wise  precaution 
contained  in  that  famous  rule  laid  down  by  Mr.  Jefferson  as 
the  basis  of  all  sound  National  credit.  I  quote  the  words  of 
the  great  philosophic  statesman,  as  equally  applicable  to  all 
possible  forms  of  public  obligation,  and  as  affording  a  basis 
at  once  secure  for  the  creditor  and  advantageous  for  the 
debtor : — 

"  Never  borrow  a  dollar  without  laying  a  tax  at  the  same  instant,  for 
paying  the  interest  annually,  and  the  principal  within  a  given  term  ;  and 
consider  that  tax  as  pledged  to  the  creditors  on  the  public  faith.  On  such 
a  pledge  as  this,  sacredly  observed,  a  government  may  always  command 
on  a  reasonable  interest,  all  the  lendable  money  of  its  citizens ;  whilst  the 
necessity  of  an  equivalent  tax  is  a  salutary  warning  to  them  and  their  con-, 
stituents  against  oppression,  bankruptcy,  aiid  its  inevitable  consequence,  — * 
revolution." 


138  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


THE    DEMOCRATIC    PARTY  AND    THE   CONSTITU 
TIONAL    AMENDMENTS. 


[A  speech  delivered  by  Mr.  Elaine  at  a  Republican  meeting  in  Mechanics' 
Hall,  Worcester,  Massachusetts,  Oct.  28,  1874.] 

FELLOW-CITIZENS,  —  In  every  political  campaign  it  is  impor 
tant  to  ascertain  the  dividing  line  between  parties,  to  find  out 
precisely  what  separates  them,  to  determine  whether  the  issue 
that  separates  them  is  worth  fighting  over.  Is  there  any  ques 
tion  at  issue  between  the  two  parties  to-day  of  sufficient  moment 
to  interest  you  as  intelligent  American  citizens — any  question 
of  sufficient  magnitude  to  decide  your  vote  ? 

I  think  there  is,  and  I  think  it  is  a  question  of  far  greater 
moment  than  the  currency  or  the  tariff,  or  anti-monopoly,  or 
railroad  or  bank  questions.  It  is  a  question  which  goes  to  the 
very  root  of  all  the  political  controversies  of  to-day ;  it  is  a 
question  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  American  citizenship; 
it  is  a  question  of  maintaining  inviolate  the  provisions  of  the 
Federal  Constitution. 

The  war  has  been  over  nearly  ten  years !  What  are  the 
fruits  of  it  ?  What  do  you  point  to  as  the  result  of  it  ?  You 
have  half  a  million  of  graves  filled  with  heroic  dead :  you  have 
a  larger  number  of  heroic  wounded  still  living.  You  have 
spent  an  immense  sum  of  money ;  you  have  an  immense  vol 
ume  of  debt ;  you  have  heavy  taxation.  Are  these  to  be  called 
the  imperishable  fruits  of  the  war?  Alas,  not!  They  are  the 
sorrowful  calamities  of  the  war !  The  dead  will  be  forgotten, 
the  debt  will  be  paid,  taxes  will  be  reduced,  and  the  genera 
tions  to  come  will  read  of  these  things  as  painful  traditions. 
But  the  result  of  that  war  is  imperishable  —  imperishable 
through  the  changes  in  the  fundamental  laws  of  your  country. 


DEMOCRATIC  PARTY  IN  1874.  139 

I  beg  you  all  to  remember  that  a  change  in  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  is  a  matter  of  great  moment.  It  is  exceed 
ingly  difficult  to  accomplish.  It  was  purposely  made  difficult 
by  the  founders  of  the  Government.  Legislation  goes  by  majori 
ties  :  an  Act  of  this  year  may  be  repealed  the  next  —  but  the 
organic  law  cannot  be  changed  so  readily.  Our  fathers  ordained 
that  it  should  require  two-thirds  of  the  Senate  and  two-thirds 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  to  do  even 
so  much  as  propose  to  the  people  to  amend  the  Constitution. 
And  when  proposed  they  made  it  a  requirement  that  three- 
fourths  of  all  the  States  should  assent  before  any  change  should 
be  ratified  and  become  effective.  In  the  progress  of  the  civil 
conflict  it  became  a  settled  conviction  in  the  minds  of  all  patri 
otic  men,  Republicans  and  Democrats  alike,  that  if  the  war 
was  to  end  victoriously  for  the  Union  a  blow  must  be  struck  at 
slavery,  first  by  the  emancipation  proclamation,  then  by  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution ;  and  the  Thirteenth  Amend 
ment  to  the  Constitution,  perfected  in  1864,  made  it  impossible 
—  in  language  originally  applied  to  another  country  but  appli 
cable  here  —  that  a  slave  could  breathe  the  air  of  the  United 
States  and  live. 

It  was  soon  found  that  the  mere  fact  of  stripping  the  mana 
cles  of  slavery  from  a  man  makes  him  only  a  freedman,  not  a 
freeman.  It  was  also  very  soon  found  that  although  the  Thir 
teenth  Amendment  referred  primarily  and  only  to  the  colored 
man,  yet  there  was  a  cognate  question  of  citizenship,  of  equal 
interest  to  the  white  man,  and  that  if  this  Government  was  to 
abide  and  be  strong  that  question  must  be  settled.  For  up  to 
that  time,  Mr.  Chairman,  there  was  nothing  in  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  there  was  nothing  in  our  laws,  there  was 
nothing  in  the  judicial  decisions  of  the  Government,  that  you 
could  put  your  hands  on  and  say,  this  constitutes  citizenship  of 
the  United  States.  There  was  no  standard  —  nothing  that  dis 
tinctively  made  you  or  me  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  In 
the  Constitution  it  was  written  that  "  the  citizens  of  each  State 
shall  enjoy  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  the  citizens  of  the 
several  States ; "  and  the  meaning  of  that  ought  to  have  been 
so  clear  that  the  wayfaring  man,  though  a  fool,  need  not  err 
therein,  and  that  the  running  man  might  read.  It  meant  very 


140  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

plainly  that  if  I,  a  citizen  of  Maine,  chose  to  come  and  cast  my 
fortunes  with  the  citizens  of  Massachusetts,  I  was  entitled  to 
all  the  privileges  and  immunities  that  you  enjoy  as  citizens  of 
Massachusetts,  and,  vice  versa,  if  you  chose  to  come  to  Maine 
you  should  have  the  same  rights  that  we  enjoy  there. 

As  between  Maine  and  Massachusetts,  and  as  between  Mas 
sachusetts  and  all  the  States  westward  to  the  Pacific,  north 
of  a  certain  line  of  latitude,  this  was  an  effectual  guaranty, 
realized  and  not  denied.  But  the  moment  you  went  south  of 
a  certain  line  of  latitude,  whether  you  were  a  colored  man  or  a 
white  man  holding  certain  obnoxious  opinions,  your  citizenship 
was  not  worth  the  paper  on  which  your  name  was  inscribed  on 
the  register  of  the  hotel  at  which  you  were  a  guest.  This  was 
not  a  mere  sentiment  —  it  was  not  a  fancied  grievance.  It  was 
an  outrageous  discrimination,  leading  to  bad  feeling  and  bad 
blood  and  to  grave  wrong.  Take  an  illustration  in  my  own 
State,  largely  engaged  in  commerce.  A  ship  would  sail  from 
Portland  for  Charleston,  S.C.,  and  among  her  crew  there  might 
be  two  or  three  colored  men.  When  that  ship  reached  Charles 
ton  those  colored  men  were  placed  in  prison,  detained  there 
while  the  ship  was  engaged  in  loading,  and  when  the  ship  was 
ready  to  sail,  if  the  captain  would  pay  the  expenses  of  incar 
ceration,  the  men  were  released,  or  if  he  refused,  they  were  sold 
into  slavery  for  life  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  imprisonment. 
But  if  on  the  same  day  an  English  ship  arrived  at  Charleston, 
with  any  number  of  colored  sailors  on  board,  the  city  authorities 
did  not  lay  the  weight  of  a  finger  upon  their  heads. 

We  thus  helplessly  witnessed  the  galling  fact  that  the  Ameri 
can  flag,  in  an  American  port,  was  less  a  measure  of  personal 
protection  than  the  British  flag  in  an  American  port.  This 
was  a  thing  not  to  be  endured.  Massachusetts  took  it  up.  She 
sent  an  agent  to  South  Carolina  to  test  the  question  in  the 
courts  of  law.  The  venerable  Samuel  Hoar  of  Concord,  father 
of  the  distinguished  gentleman  who  represents  this  district  in 
Congress,  was  selected  for  the  mission.  The  older  portion  of 
my  audience  will  remember  that  he  was  driven  out  by  a  mob, 
and  his  life  barely  saved  by  some  considerate  people  in  Charles 
ton,  who  seemed  to  appreciate  the  great  and  lasting  disgrace 
that  shedding  his  blood  would  bring  upon  that  city. 


DEMOCRATIC  PARTY  IN  1874.  141 

Thus  it  stood  after  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  was  passed. 
The  shackles  of  slavery  were  torn  from  these  men,  but  was 
any  thing  conferred  upon  them  that  enabled  them  to  defend 
their  own  freedom  ?  In  connection  with  this  was  there  not  some 
thing  of  interest  to  you  and  to  me  —  white  men?  The  Repub 
lican  party  thought  so,  and  being  a  party  of  progress  they 
determined  to  incorporate  into  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  an  amendment,  that  should  define  American  citizenship, 
white  and  black,  native  and  foreign  born,  in  unmistakable 
terms,  and  for  all  time.  That  was  the  origin  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Let  us  look  at  the  language  of  that  amendment.  "  All  per 
sons  born  or  naturalized  in  the  United  States,  and  subject  to 
the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  of 
the  State  wherein  they  reside." 

Mark  you  then :  "  all  persons,"  no  matter  what  their  color, 
black  or  white,  blonde  or  brunette  —  no  matter  where  born, 
native  or  naturalized  :  The  Constitution  says,  "all  persons  born 
or  naturalized  in  the  United  States  are  citizens  thereof,  and  of 
the  States  wherein  they  reside."  That  is  the  affirmative  part 
of  the  amendment.  But  the  negative  is  still  more  suggestive, 
for  it  contains  a  most  weighty  inhibition  —  let  me  read  it.  "  No 
State  shall  make  or  enforce  any  law  which  shall  abridge  the 
privileges  or  immunities  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States." 

Mark  you  again,  gentlemen,  "  privileges  or  immunities," 
Your  right  to  vote ;  your  right  to  your  own  creed ;  your  right 
to  your  personal  liberty  —  no  State  shall  make  any  law  to  inter 
fere  with  them :  "  Nor  shall  any  State  deprive  any  person  of 
life,  or  liberty,  or  property,  without  due  process  of  law,  nor 
shall  any  State  deny  to  any  person  within  its  jurisdiction  the 
equal  protection  of  the  law."  This  is  the  spirit  of  the  Four 
teenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution.  And  then  these  signifi 
cant  words  are  added,  that  "  Congress  shall  have  pow,er  to 
enforce  the  provisions  of  this  amendment  by  appropriate  legis 
lation." 

Fellow-citizens,  that  amendment  was  passed  in  Congress  by 
the  Republican  vote,  with  every  Democratic  vote  opposed.  It 
was  passed  in  three-fourths  of  the  State  Legislatures,  with  every 
Republican  vote  in  every  Legislature  in  favor  of  it,  and  every 


142  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

Democratic  vote  in  every  Legislature  opposed  to  it,  and  to  this 
hour  there  has  never  been  in  any  convention  of  the  Democratic 
party,  National,  State,  county,  or  district,  a  single  declaration 
so  far  as  I  have  seen  agreeing  to  abide  by  and  enforce  that 
amendment. 

The  sententious  Democratic  platform  of  New  York,  inspired 
by  Mr.  Tilden  and  written  by  Mr.  Manton  Marble,  now  quoted 
by  Democrats  everywhere,  most  significantly  omits  all  approval 
of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  It  simply  professes  obedience 
to  the  Constitution  and  laws.  Yes ;  but  do  you  consider  the 
Thirteenth,  Fourteenth,  and  JFifteenth  Amendments  to  be  parts 
of  the  Constitution?  The  great  Democratic  leader,  Jeremiah 
Black,  has  answered  you.  He  says  those  amendments  should 
be  put  in  process  of  gradual  extinction,  and  the  Democratic 
party  must  put  them  in  process  of  gradual  extinction. 

The  Republican  party,  empowered  by  Congress  to  legislate 
under  those  amendments,  proceeded  to  do  so,  and  they  passed 
what  has  been  derisively  styled  the  "  Kuklux  law  "  by  hot  par 
tisans.  You  have  read  in  the  Democratic  papers  a  great  deal 
of  abuse  heaped  upon  the  Kuklux  law.  Pray,  now,  what  is 
that  law  ?  Strip  it  of  its  legal  verbiage,  and  it  is  simply  this : 
that  if  any  citizen  of  the  United  States  shall  receive  an  injury 
in  his  person  or  his  property,  and  the  local  authority  is  unable 
or  unwilling  to  protect  and  redress  him,  then  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  United  States  Government  to  step  in  and  do  it.  So 
long  as  the  State  authority  shall  discharge  its  duty  (as  the 
State  of  Massachusetts,  the  State  of  Maine,  and  the  great  body 
of  the  States  do),  there  is  no  necessity  for  invoking  Federal 
interposition  ;  but  when  State  supervision  is  not  given,  and 
when  the  citizen  is  left  without  redress,  then,  according  to 
the  Kuklux  law,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Federal  Government 
with  all  its  powers  to  vindicate  the  citizen  in  all  his  rights. 

It  is  on  that  point  the  Democratic  party  takes  issue  with  us. 
You  draw  a  line  of  demarcation,  and  upon  that  side  stands  every 
Democrat,  and  upon  this  every  Republican.  Let  me  read  you 
the  last  confession  of  faith  in  the  last  National  convention  of 
the  Democratic  party.  This  is  what  the  platform  of  two  years 
ago  in  the  Presidential  struggle  said :  "  Subject  to  our  Constitu 
tional  obligations  to  maintain  the  equal  rights  of  citizens,  our 


DEMOCRATIC  TARTY  IN   1874.  143 

policy  shall  aim  at  local  government  and  not  at  centralization, 
and  there  shall  be  no  Federal  subversion  of  the  internal  policy 
of  the  several  States,  but  each  shall  be  left  free  to  enforce  the 
rights  and  promote  the  well-being  of  its  inhabitants  by  such 
means  as  the  judgment  of  its  own  people  shall  dictate." 

Wherefore,  if  a  man  happens  to  be  maimed  or  half  mur 
dered  by  Kuklux  klans  in  Alabama  or  Louisiana,  it  must  prove 
a  great  comfort  to  his  wounded  body  and  bruised  spirit  to  hear 
that  the  great  Democratic  party  of  the  United  States  says  that 
the  National  Government  shall  not  interfere,  but  that  the  local 
Government  shall  "  promote  the  well-being  of  its  inhabitants  by 
such  means  as  the  judgment  of  its  own  people  shall  dictate." 
The  meaning  of  all  this  is,  that  the  community  inflicting  the 
outrage  shall  organize  themselves  into  a  jury  to  try  themselves 
for  having  done  it.  No  matter  how  much  you  may  be  mal 
treated  by  any  community,  no  matter  if  you  are  warned  to 
leave  in  twenty-four  hours,  no  matter  what  you?  injury  may  be 
in  the  forfeiture  of  your  estate  and  the  abuse  of  your  person, 
you  must  look  for  your  redress  wholly  to  the  villains  who  in 
flicted  the  outrage — you  cannot  in  any  stress  ask  the  United 
States  to  intervene  in  your  behalf. 

I  hold  in  my  hand  an  official  report  made  by  a  select  com 
mittee  of  both  branches  of  Congress,  and  I  find  that  the  Union 
men,  both  black  and  white,  murdered  in  the  South  since  the 
war  closed,  are  greater  in  number  than  those  who  lost  their  lives 
in  the  Mexican  war  and  in  the  war  of  1812  combined.  More 
men  have  been  wounded  in  the  South  than  were  wounded  in 
the  Mexican  war  and  in  the  war  of  1812.  Yet  the  Democrats 
coolly  remand  you  to  local  self-government,  and  obligingly  tell 
you  that  there  is  no  power  in  the  Federal  Government  to  inter 
vene  in  your  behalf.  We  all  know,  gentlemen,  that  remanding 
the  man  who  is  injured,  in  the  great  majority  of  these  cases  of 
Southern  outrage,  to  the  local  authorities,  is  the  greatest  farce 
in  the  world,  or  would  be  if  it  were  not  so  ghastly  a  tragedy 
of  blood.  You  send  him  who  has  been  outraged  by  a  band  of 
villains,  to  be  tried  by  that  band  itself,  while  the  United  States, 
according  to  Democratic  authority,  has  no  right  whatever  to 
intervene.  Assuredly,  we  present  most  extraordinary  contra 
dictions  on  this  question  of  citizenship,  the  most  extraordinary 


144  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

in  this,  that  if  an  American  citizen  be  harmed  in  any  respect 
by  a  foreign  government,  we  at  once  fly  into  a  tempestuous 
rage,  order  naval  vessels  into  commission,  summon  the  army, 
start  all  the  diplomatic  functions  of  the  Government,  display 
in  every  form  our  readiness  and  our  eagerness  to  vindicate  that 
man  at  the  expense  of  blood  and  treasure.  It  has  been  so 
always,  regardless  of  party.  I  might  give  you  a  hundred  cases 
if  I  had  time.  Let  me  give  you  two  extreme  cases :  I  select 
them  because  of  their  extraordinary  character.  I  will  give  you 
a  Democratic  precedent  and  then  a  Republican  precedent. 

A  little  more  than  twenty  years  ago  the  first  happened. 
After  the  revolution  in  Germany,  in  1848,  and  in  consequence 
of  it,  a  large  emigration  came  to  this  country.  Among  those 
emigrants  a  man  who  settled  in  the  State  of  New  Jersey  de 
clared  his  intention  to  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 
He  never  went  farther.  He  was  not  fully  naturalized.  He 
never  paid  a  cent  of  taxes,  local,  State  or  national.  He  never 
voted.  In  the  language  of  our  Maine  statute,  he  never  had  any 
"  last  or  usual  place  of  abode ; "  and  without  going  a  single 
step  beyond  what  I  have  stated,  that  man  went  back  to  Europe, 
and  finally  engaged  in  trade  in  the  city  of  Smyrna,  in  Asia 
Minor.  In  1853  he  was  arrested  by  an  Austrian  official,  and 
was  about  to  be  taken  to  Vienna  to  be  tried  for  high  treason  by 
the  Austrian  Government.  He  appealed  to  the  American  con 
sul  for  protection.  He  stated  his  case  truthfully,  like  a  man,  — 
stated  just  what  a  shadowy  claim  he  had  upon  citizenship  in  this 
country.  The  consul  felt  doubtful,  but  he  called  into  confer 
ence  Duncan  Ingraham,  of  the  United  States  Navy,  who  was  in 
the  harbor  with  a  vessel-of-war,  and  after  conferring  upon  the 
case,  they  agreed  that  the  man  ought  to  be  protected,  and  Cap 
tain  Ingraham  sent  a  polite  note  to  the  authorities  of  Smyrna 
saying  that  if  Martin  Costa  was  not  put  aboard  his  vessel  in 
twenty-four  hours,  he  would  bombard  and  destroy  the  city.  A 
gentle  intimation  of  that  kind,  with  twenty  columbiads  behind 
it,  is  a  very  persuasive  sort  of  argument,  and  the  man  was  put 
on  board  and  brought  back  to  this  country,  and  William  L. 
Marcy  of  New  York,  one  of  the  greatest  of  the  past  generation 
of  Democratic  statesmen,  published  an  able  paper,  .vindicating 
Costa's  right  to  American  protection. 


DEMOCRATIC  PARTY  IN  1874.  145 

Let  me  give  you  a  Republican  precedent  of  later  date  which 
happened  indeed  only  four  years  ago.  In  the  long-continued 
revolt  in  Cuba,  there  was  one  John  Emile  Howard,  who  fell 
under  the  power  of  the  Spanish  Government.  It  was  alleged 
that  he  had  been  aiding  and  abetting  the  rebellion,  in  that  he  had 
given  his  medical  services  to  the  rebel  army.  He  had  given 
some  medicine,  or  set  a  broken  limb,  or  done  some  act  of  mercy 
to  suffering  humanity.  The  Spanish  officials  arrested  him,  tried 
him  by  a  drum-head  court-martial,  and  sentenced  him  to  fourteen 
years'  imprisonment  in  a  penal  colony  on  the  coast  of  Africa,  — 
a  sentence  worse  than  death.  That  man  appealed  to  this  Gov 
ernment  for  protection,  sent  his  memorial  to  a  Democratic  rep 
resentative,  Mr.  Samuel  J.  Randall,  of  the  city  of  Philadelphia, 
and  Mr.  Randall  presented  the  case  to  the  House. 

The  facts  in  that  memorial  were  these :  This  man  was  the 
son  of  a  French  emigrant  who  came  to  America  after  the  down 
fall  of  Napoleon  in  1815,  and  settled  in  Philadelphia.  The 
father  was  naturalized  fully  and  completely,  and  the  naturaliza 
tion  carried  with  it  that  of  his  minor  children,  of  whom  this 
man  was  one.  He  grew  up  in  Philadelphia,  graduated  at  the 
Pennsylvania  University,  took  his  degree,  and  in  1840  went 
to  the  island  of  Cuba.  He  never  returned;  he  never  paid  a 
tax  here,  never  voted  here ;  performed  no  act  of  citizenship 
whatever  in  any  State  of  the  American  Union.  But  he  had 
done  nothing  to  denationalize  himself;  he  had  never  sworn 
allegiance  to  any  other  government ;  he  had  kept  steadily  burn 
ing  in  his  heart  a  desire  to  return  to  that  which  to  all  intents 
and  purposes  to  him  was  his  native  land. 

The  House  of  Representatives  upon  that  memorial,  the  facts 
being  ascertained  and  corroborated,  passed  a  resolution,  by  an 
almost  unanimous  vote,  requesting  the  President  of  the  United 
States  to  interpose  in  his  behalf.  President  Grant  did  so,  and 
our  minister  at  Madrid,  General  Sickles  of  New  York,  was  in 
structed  to  demand  Howard's  release ;  not  on  the  ground,  mark 
you,  that  the  man  had  not  done  what  he  was  charged  with 
doing,  but  on  the  ground  that  whether  he  had  or  not,  he  was  an 
American  citizen,  and  was  entitled,  by  our  treaty  with  Spain, 
to  be  tried  in  a  certain  manner  —  not  by  court-martial  —  and 
not  having  been  tried  according  to  treaty  stipulation,  he  was 


146  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

not  legally  held,  and  hence  our  minister  to  Spain,  under  the 
instruction  of  President  Grant,  demanded  his  release.  The 
Spanish  Ministry,  always  proud  and  unyielding,  hesitated  and 
raised  quibbles,  and  did  not  want  to  give  him  up  at  all. 

Finally,  they  said  they  would  pardon  him.  General  Sickles 
was  promptly  instructed  not  to  accept  a  pardon,  because  a  par 
don  implied  guilt  —  implied  that  the  man  had  been  rightfully 
tried.  General  Sickles  refused  to  accept  his  pardon,  and  after 
a  little  further  diplomatic  delay  and  hesitation,  the  Spanish 
Government  gave  him  up,  and  he  came  back  to  his  ancient 
home  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia. 

These  are  extreme  cases.  Compared  with  the  citizenship 
which  you  and  I  enjoy — which  you,  the  naturalized  men  in 
this  audience,  and  you,  the  native  born  men  —  Costa  and 
Howard  had  but  shadowy  claims,  and  yet  they  had  enough  to 
call  forth  the  whole  power  of  the  Government  to  vindicate  their 
right.  I  do  not  mean  to  dissent  from  the  decisions  made,  but 
I  do  not  understand,  and  cannot  be  made  to  comprehend,  how  a 
government  that  has  an  arm  long  enough  and  strong  enough  to 
reach  to  the  eastern  end  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  and  pluck  a 
man  from  the  hands  of  Austrian  power,  and  on  the  other  side, 
to  reach  over  the  Atlantic  and  beyond  the  Pyrenees,  and  take  a 
man  from  the  hands  of  Spanish  tyranny,  has  not  power  enough 
to  reach  down  into  Alabama  and  South  Carolina  and  protect 
its  own  citizens  both  native  born  and  naturalized. 

Within  sixty  days  your  attention  has  been  called  to  a  very 
tragical  case  in  Tennessee.  A  brutal  mob  of  white  citizens  as 
saulted  a  crowd  of  innocent  colored  men,  killed  five  of  them, 
and  maimed  eleven  others.  President  Grant,  through  the 
department  of  justice,  was  intervening  for  their  protection, 
when  he  withheld  his  power,  on  the  assurance  of  Governor 
Brown  of  Tennessee  that  he  Avas  about  to  put  all  the  enginery 
of  the  State  in  motion  in  order  to  punish  the  authors  of  the 
crimes.  But  you  will  observe  that  whether  Governor  Brown 
had  done  this  or  not,  the  Democratic  doctrine  denies  the  right 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  intervene.  See  the 
inevitable  absurdity  which  this  Democratic  doctrine  involves. 
If  those  sixteen  citizens  of  the  United  States  had  received  that 
injury  on  British  soil,  our  Government  would  have  promptly 


DEMOCRATIC  PARTY  IX  1874.  147 

and  most  emphatically  demanded  reparation  for  the  slain  and 
recompense  to  the  wounded.  The  demand  would  have  been 
made  at  the  mouth  of  the  cannon.  Or,  if  on  the  other  hand, 
those  sixteen  colored  men  had  been  subjects  of  Queen  Victoria, 
doing  lawful  business  in  Tennessee,  and  had  been  thus  out 
raged  and  mobbed,  Great  Britain  would  have  promptly  de 
manded  reparation  from  the  United  States.  So  that,  whether 
these  men  had  been  American  citizens  on  British  soil,  or 
British  subjects  on  American  soil,  they  would  in  either  case 
have  been  sustained  by  the  enginery  of  a  great  nation  for  their 
vindication ;  but  having  the  misfortune  to  be  simply  American 
citizens  on  American  soil,  the  modern  Democratic  doctrine  is 
that  there  is  no  power  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  the  Repub 
lic  whereby  they  can  be  protected  or  their  rights  vindicated. 

The  majesty  and  might  of  a  nation  are  measured,  fellow- 
citizens,  by  no  standard  so  accurately  as  by  the  degree  of  pro 
tection  given  to  their  citizens  or  subjects.  It  is  altogether  idle 
to  preach  loyalty  to  a  people  unless  loyalty  brings  protection. 
What  did  you  fight  for  in  the  late  war  ?  Was  it  for  a  mere 
abstract  idea,  or  for  a  great  and  strong  Government,  that  should 
protect  you  and  your  children  to  the  latest  generation,  in  their 
rights  of  person  and  property?  If  you  went  out  and  fought 
for  a  Government  that  was  willing  to  take  your  blood  and  for 
tune,  and  not  willing,  in  return,  to  extend  its  protection  to  you, 
you  are  a  deluded  and  defrauded  man.  I  beg  you,  my  friends, 
whether  you  be  native  born  or  naturalized,  whether  you  be  rich 
or  poor,  not  to  pass  this  idly  by  on  the  assumption  that  you  are 
in  no  danger  —  that  this,  in  the  vulgar  language  of  the  cam 
paign,  is  only  a  "  nigger  question."  The  strength  of  a  column 
is  the  strength  of  its  weakest  part,  and  I  tell  you  the  strength 
of  government  protection  to  citizenship  is  not  that  which  goes 
out  to  the  wealthy  and  the  influential,  to  the  strong  and  the 
mighty,  but  it  is  that  which  protects  and  upholds  the  lowly, 
the  poor  and  the  weak. 

I  said  in  the  earlier  part  of  my  remarks,  and  I  here  repeat, 
that  I  have  never  known  a  case  where  any  authorized  expo 
nent  of  the  Democratic  party,  in  convention  or  elsewhere,  has 
given  any  expression  in  favor  of  the  enforcement  of  the.  Thir 
teenth,  Fourteenth,  and  Fifteenth  Amendments.  If  there  be 


148  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

such  a  case  I  should  like  to  have  it  pointed  out  to  me.  While 
I  can  find  no  exposition  of  the  party  in  favor  of  enforcement 
of  those  amendments,  I  can  find  numberless  instances  where 
they  resolve  that  those  amendments  shall  not  be  maintained. 

I  hold  in  my  hand  an  official  copy  of  the  report  of  the  joint 
committee  of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress  upon  the  Kuklux  con 
spiracy.  Out  of  numberless  quotations  from  the  report  of  the 
Democratic  minority  that  I  might  make  I  read  you  this :  Refer 
ring  to  the  dominance  of  the  Republican  party  as  the  cause  of 
these  amendments,  the  minority  declare,  "  But  whenever  that 
party  shall  go  down,  and  go  down  it  will  some  time  not  long  in 
the  future,  that  will  be  the  end  of  the  political  power  of  the 
negro  among  white  men  on  this  continent."  Among  the 
Democrats  who  announced  this  extraordinary  position  were 
Mr.  Bayard  of  Delaware  and  General  Blair  of  Missouri. 

The  talk  of  these  Democratic  senators  is  very  plain.  It 
means,  if  it  means  any  thing,  that  the  Thirteenth  and  Four 
teenth  Amendments  are  to  be  nullified  —  nothing  else.  Let  me 
read  you  something  still  more  significant :  "  Gradually,"  say 
these  same  Democrats,  "in  time,  under  a  change  of  circum 
stances,  this  exceptional  state  of  the  popular  mind,"  that  is,  the 
state  of  the  popular  mind  that  upholds  these  amendments,  "  will 
change,  wear  out,  and  pass  away,  and  public  opinion  will  vibrate 
back  to  its  old  condition  as  it  existed  prior  to  the  disturbing 
influences  of  the  war." 

This,  mark  you,  is  an  official  declaration  that  secured  the 
approval  of  every  Democrat  in  both  branches  of  Congress. 
Take  them  on  their  word :  what  does  it  mean  by  "  vibrating 
back  to  the  point  where  it  was  before  the  disturbing  influences 
of  the  war"?  If  it  means  any  thing,  it  means  that  the  negro 
will  ultimately  go  back  into  slavery.  You  withdraw  all  the 
National  authority;  you  leave  those  States  according  to  the 
platform  upon  which  Horace  Greeley  stood  as  a  Presidential 
candidate — you  leave  those  States  to  settle  this  question  for 
themselves  under  Mr.  Tilden's  doctrine  of  to-day,  and  very 
quickly  they  would  settle  the  condition  of  the  colored  men. 

These  facts  lead  me  to  say,  and  I  consider  it  the  closing  indict 
ment  of  the  case,  that  it  is  not  the  "white  leagues"  of  the 
South,  it  is  not  the  misguided,  disappointed,  crushed  rebel  with 


DEMOCRATIC  PARTY  IN  1874.  149 

whom  the  danger  lies,  but  it  lies  at  the  door  of  the  Northern 
Democracy.  If  to-day  you  will  root  out  of  the  minds  of  the 
Southern  Democrats  the  conviction  that  a  Democratic  triumph 
in  this  country  is  to  bring  about  the  precise  state  of  things 
you  have  in  that  minority  report,  you  will  make  loyal  men  out 
of  them  in  a  moment.  They  do  not  live  by  their  own  passions. 
They  live  by  the  comfort,  assurance  and  hope  which  they 
receive  from  Massachusetts  and  other  Northern  States,  and 
most  of  all  from  the  city  and  State  of  New  York. 

I  venture  therefore  to  say  that  for  the  disturbed  condition  of 
things  at  the  South  to-day  the  Democratic  party  of  the  North 
is  principally  if  not  solely  responsible.  Let  the  Northern 
leaders  of  that  party  declare  as  patriotic  men  that  they  accept 
the  Constitutional  amendments  in  good  faith.  Let  them  say  to 
Southern  men  :  'You  must  accept  these  amendments  with  all 
that  they  imply  and  all  that  they  include,  as  the  legitimate 
fruits  of  the  war.  They  may  offend,  they  may  grate  upon  your 
prejudices,  they  may  irritate  and  chasten,  but  in  the  judgment  of 
those  who  have  the  care  and  keeping  of  this  great  government, 
they  have  been  considered  essential  to  the  preservation  of  the 
future,  and  you  must  submit.'  Let  that  word  go  forth  from  the 
Democrats  of  the  North,  and  there  will  be  no  further  disturb 
ance  in  the  South  —  none  whatever.  Let  that  go  forth  from 
any  Democratic  convention,  especially  let  it  go  from  a  conven 
tion  with  the  prestige  and  power  of  that  which  in  New  York 
lately  nominated  Mr.  Tilden  for  governor  —  still  more,  let  it 
go  from  a  Democratic  convention  with  the  prestige  that  put 
Horatio  Seymour  six  years  ago  before  the  people  for  President, 
and  you  will  end  the  entire  trouble  in  the  South. 

I  venture  to  go  farther :  let  conventions  be  dumb,  National 
and  State,  and  I  will  name  you  fifty  Democrats  whose  word  of 
assurance  will  end  the  trouble.  Yes,  I  venture  even  to  go 
farther  still,  and  as  in  ancient  times  if  ten  righteous  men  had 
been  found  in  Sodom  the  wrath  of  God  might  have  been  averted 
from  the  cities  of  the  plain,  so  this  day  and  this  hour  I  can  name 
you  ten  Democrats,  and  two  of  them  shall  be  from  New  York, 
who,  if  with  the  weight  of  their  character  and  the  might  of 
their  influence,  they  shall  speak  peace  to  this  country  on  the 
Southern  question,  will  give  it  peace  ! 


150  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


SHALL    JEFFERSON    DAVIS    BE    RESTORED    TO 
FULL    CITIZENSHIP? 


[On  the  tenth  day  of  January,  1876,  Mr.  Randall  of  Pennsylvania  called  up  a 
hill  (of  which  he  had  given  previous  notice)  relieving  all  persons  in  the  United 
States  from  the  disabilities  imposed  by  the  Fourteenth  Article  of  Amendment 
to  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  Elaine  of  Maine  proposed  an  amendment,  in  the  nature  of  a  substitute 
(of  which  he  had  also  given  previous  notice),  that  "all  persons  in  the  United 
States  under  the  disabilities  imposed  by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  with  the 
exception  of  Jefferson  Davis,  late  President  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States, 
shall  be  relieved  of  such  disabilities,  upon  their  appearing  before  any  judge  of  a 
United  States  Court,  and  taking  and  subscribing  an  oath  that  they  will  support 
and  defend  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  bear  true  faith  and  alle 
giance  to  the  same." 

Mr.  Randall  declined  to  admit  the  amendment,  and  demanded  the  previous 
question,  which  was  sustained  by  yeas  164,  nays  100.  The  Amnesty  Bill  was 
then  put  upon  its  passage,  and,  requiring  a  two-thirds  vote,  it  was  defeated,  ayes 
175,  noes  97. 

Mr.  Elaine  immediately  rose,  and  addressed  the  House.  His  speech  is  given 
below.] 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  I  rise  to  a  privileged  question.  I  move  to 
reconsider  the  vote  which  has  just  been  declared.  I  propose 
to  debate  the  question  at  issue,  and  now  give  notice  that  if  the 
motion  to  reconsider  shall  be  agreed  to,  it  is  my  intention  to 
offer  the  amendment  which  has  been  read  several  times.  I  will 
not  delay  the  House  to  ask  that  it  be  read  again. 

Every  time  the  question  of  amnesty  has  been  introduced, 
during  the  last  two  Congresses,  by  a  Democratic  member,  it 
has  been  done  with  a  certain  flourish  of  magnanimity  which 
seemed  to  convey  an  imputation  on  this  side  of  the  House.  It 
seemed  to  charge  the  Republican  party,  which  has  been  in  con 
trol  of  the  Government  for  the  last  fifteen  years,  with  being 
bigoted,  narrow,  and  illiberal,  grinding  down  certain  gentlemen 
in  the  Southern  States  under  a  great  tyranny,  from  which  the 


SHALL  JEFFERSON  DAVIS  BE  AMNESTIED?  151 

hard-heartedness  of  this  side  of  the  House  constantly  refuses  to 
relieve  them. 

If  I  may  anticipate  as  much  wisdom  as  ought  to  characterize 
the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  the  House,  this  may  be  the 
last  time  that  amnesty  need  be  brought  to  the  attention  of  Con 
gress.  I  desire,  therefore,  to  place  on  record  precisely  what  the 
Republican  party  has  done  in  this  matter.  I  wish  to  place  it 
there  as  an  imperishable  record  of  liberality  and  magnanimity 
and  mercy  far  beyond  that  which  has  ever  before  been  shown 
in  the  world's  history  by  conqueror  to  conquered. 

I  entered  Congress  at  the  same  time  with  the  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania  [Mr.  Randall],  while  the  hot  flame  of  war  was  yet 
raging,  when  the  Union  was  rocking  to  its  foundations,  and  when 
no  man  knew  whether  we  were  to  have  a  county  or  not.  I 
think  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  would  have  been  sur 
prised  when  he  and  I  were  novices  in  the  Thirty-eighth  Con 
gress,  if  he  had  been  told  that  before  our  joint  service  ended 
we  should  see  sixty-one  gentlemen,  who  were  then  in  arms 
against  us,  admitted  to  the  privileges  of  membership  in  this 
body,  and  all  by  the  grace  and  magnanimity  of  the  Republican 
party.  When  the  war  ended,  according  to  the  universal  usage 
of  nations,  the  Government,  then  under  the  exclusive  control 
of  the  Republican  party,  had  the  right  to  determine  what  should 
be  the  political  status  of  the  people  who  had  suffered  defeat. 
Did  the  Republicans,  with  full  power  in  their  hands,  inaugurate 
any  measure  of  persecution?  Did  they  set  forth  on  a  career 
of  bloodshed  and  vengeance  ?  Did  they  take  the  property  of 
the  Southern  people  who  had  rebelled  ?  Did  they  deprive  any 
man  of  his  civil  rights? 

Not  at  all.  Instead  of  a  general  and  sweeping  condemnation, 
the  Republican  party  placed  in  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to 
the  Constitution  only  this  exclusion  :  — 

"That  no  person  shall  be  a  Senator  or  Representative  in  Congress,  or 
elector  of  President  and  Vice-President,  or  hold  any  office,  civil  or  military, 
under  the  United  States  or  under  any  State,  who,  having  previously  taken 
an  oath  as  a  member  of  Congress,  or  as  an  officer  of  the  United  States,  or 
as  a  member  of  any  State  Legislature,  or  as  an  executive  or  judicial  officer 
of  any  State,  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  shall  have 
engaged  in  insurrection  or  rebellion  against  the  same,  or  given  aid  or  com 
fort  to  the  enemies  thereof.  But  Congress  may,  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of 
each  House,  remove  such  disability." 


152  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

It  has  been  variously  estimated  that  this  section  at  the  time 
of  its  original  insertion  in  the  Constitution  included  from  four 
teen  to  thirty  thousand  persons.  As  nearly  as  I  can  gather  the 
facts  of  the  case,  it  included  about  eighteen  thousand  men  in 
the  South.  It  did  not  apply  to  the  hundreds  of  thousands  — 
or  millions,  if  you  please  —  who  had  been  engaged  in  the  attempt 
to  destroy  this  Government.  It  held  under  disability  only 
those  who,  in  joining  the  rebellion,  had  violated  a  special  and 
peculiar  and  personal  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  It  was  limited  to  these. 

That  disability,  Mr.  Speaker,  was  hardly  placed  upon  the 
South  before  we  began  in  this  hall  and  in  the  other  wing  of  the 
Capitol,  when  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  members  in  each 
branch  were  Republicans,  to  remit  it,  and  the  very  first  bill 
removed  the  disability  from  1,578  citizens  of  the  South.  The 
next  bill  removed  it  from  3,526  others.  Amnesty  was  thus 
granted  by  wholesale.  Many  of  the  gentlemen  on  this  floor 
shared  the  grace  conferred  on  those  occasions.  After  these  bills 
had  passed,  with  several  smaller  bills  specifying  individuals, 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  in  1872,  still  being  two-thirds 
Republican  in  both  branches,  passed  this  general  law :  — 

"  That  all  political  disabilities,  imposed  by  the  third  section  of  the  four 
teenth  article  of  amendments  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  are 
hereby  removed  from  all  persons  whomsoever,  except  Senators  and  Repre 
sentatives  of  the  Thirty-sixth  and  Thirty-seventh  Congresses,  officers  in  the 
judicial,  military,  and  naval  service  of  the  United  States,  heads  of  depart 
ments,  and  foreign  ministers  of  the  United  States." 

Since  that  measure  passed,  a  very  considerable  number  of  the 
gentlemen  whom  it  still  left  under  disability  have  been  relieved 
specially,  by  name,  in  separate  Acts.  But  I  believe,  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  no  instance  since  the  Act  of  May  22,  1872,  have  the 
disabilities  been  removed,  except  upon  respectful  petition  to 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  from  the  person  interested. 
I  believe  in  no  instance,  except  one,  have  they  been  refused 
upon  the  petition  being  presented.  I  believe  in  no  instance, 
except  one,  has  there  been  any  other  than  a  unanimous  vote 
for  removing  the  disability. 

I  find  there  are  widely  varying  opinions  in  regard  to  the 
number  that  are  still  under  disabilities  in  the  South.  By  con- 


NUMBER  UNDER  DISABILITY  IN  1876.  153 

ference  with  the  Department  of  War  and  of  the  Navy,  and 
with  the  assistance  of  some  records  which  I  have  caused  to 
be  searched,  I  am  able  to  state  to  the  House,  I  believe  with 
substantial  accuracy,  the  number  of  gentlemen  in  the  South 
still  under  disabilities.  Those  who  were  officers  of  the  United 
States  army,  educated  at  its  own  expense  at  West  Point  and 
who  joined  the  rebellion,  and  are  still  included  under  this  Act, 
number,  as  nearly  as  the  War  Department  can  state  it,  325 ; 
those  in  the  Navy  about  295.  Those  under  the  other  heads 
—  Senators  and  Representatives  of  the  Thirty-sixth  and  Thirty- 
seventh  Congresses,  officers  in  the  judicial  service  of  the 
United  States,  heads  of  departments,  and  foreign  ministers 
of  the  United  States  —  make  up  a  number  somewhat  more 
difficult  to  state  accurately,  but  estimated  at  125  to  130. 
The  entire  list,  therefore,  is  about  750  persons  now  under 
disabilities  out  of  the  great  unnumbered  host  that  engaged  in 
the  rebellion. 

I  am  very  frank  to  say  that  in  regard  to  all  these  gentlemen, 
save  one,  I  do  not  know  any  reason  why  amnesty  should  not 
be  granted,  as  it  has  been  to  many  others  of  the  same  class.  I 
am  not  here  to  argue  against  it.  The  gentleman  from  Iowa 
[Mr.  Kasson]  suggests  "on  their  application."  I  agree  with 
him  on  that  point.  But  in  the  absence  of  the  respectful  form 
of  application,  which  since  May  22, 1872,  has  become  a  sort  of 
common  law  as  preliminary  to  amnesty,  I  simply  wish  to  make 
it  a  condition  that  they  shall  go  before  a  United  States  court, 
and,  with  uplifted  hand,  swear  that  they  will  conduct  them 
selves  as  good  and  loyal  citizens  of  the  United  States.  That 
is  all. 

Gentlemen  may  say  that  this  is  a  foolish  exaction.  Possibly 
it  is.  But  I  confess  I  have  a  prejudice  in  favor  of  it.  I  insist 
upon  it,  because  I  do  not  want  to  impose  citizenship  on  any 
gentleman.  If  I  am  correctly  informed,  and  I  state  it  on  ap 
parently  good  authority,  there  are  some  gentlemen  in  this  list 
who  have  spoken  contemptuously  of  resuming  citizenship,  and 
have  spoken  still  more  contemptuously  of  applying  for  citizen 
ship.  I  may  state  it  erroneously,  and  if  I  do  I  am  ready  to 
be  corrected ;  but  I  understand  that  Mr.  Robert  Toombs  has, 
on  several  occasions,  at  watering-places,  both  in  this  country 


154  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

and  in  Europe,  openly  and  publicly  stated  that  he  would  not 
ask  the  United  States  for  citizenship. 

I  insist,  therefore,  that  if  Mr.  Robert  Toombs  is  not  prepared 
to  go  into  a  court  of  the  United  States,  and  swear  that  he  hon 
estly  intends  to  be  a  good  and  loyal  citizen,  he  may  live  and 
die  outside  of  that  great  privilege.  I  do  not  think  that  the 
two  Houses  of  Congress  should  convert  themselves  into  a  joint 
convention  for  the  purpose  of  embracing  Mr.  Robert  Toombs, 
and  requesting  him  to  favor  us  by  coming  back  and  accepting 
the  honors  of  citizenship.  All  we  ask  on  this  side  of  the  House 
is,  that  each  of  these  gentlemen  shall  show  his  good  faith  by 
coming  forward  and  taking  the  oath,  which  all  the  members  on 
this  floor  take,  and  are  proud  to  take.  It  is  a  very  small  exac 
tion  to  make  as  a  preliminary  to  full  restoration  to  all  the  rights 
of  citizenship. 

In  my  amendment,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  excepted  Jefferson 
Davis  from  amnesty.  I  do  not  place  his  exclusion  on  the 
ground  that  he  was,  as  he  has  been  commonly  called,  the  head 
and  front  of  the  rebellion,  because  I  do  not  think  the  exception 
would  be  tenable.  Mr.  Davis  was  in  that  respect  as  guilty, 
no  more  so,  no  less  so,  than  thousands  of  others  who  have 
received  the  benefit  and  grace  of  amnesty.  Probably  he  was  less 
efficient  as  an  enemy  of  the  United  States,  probably  he  was 
more  useful  as  a  disturber  of  the  councils  of  the  Confeder 
acy,  than  many  who  have  already  received  amnesty.  It  is  not 
because  of  any  particular  and  special  damage  that  he  above 
others  did  to  the  Union,  or  because  he  was  personally  or  espe 
cially  of  consequence,  that  I  except  him.  But  I  except  him  on 
this  ground :  that  he  was  the  responsible  author,  knowingly, 
deliberately,  guiltily,  of  the  great  crime  of  Andersonville. 

I  base  his  exclusion  on  that  ground ;  and  I  believe  to-day, 
that  so  rapidly  does  one  event  follow  on  the  heels  of  an 
other  in  the  age  in  which  we  live,  that  even  those  of  us  who 
were  contemporaneous  with  the  war,  and  especially  those  who 
have  grown  up  since,  fail  to  remember  the  crime  at  Ander 
sonville. 

Since  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  Randall]  intro 
duced  this  bill  last  month,  I  have  taken  occasion  to  re-read 
some  of  the  historic  cruelties  of  the  world.  I  have  read  once 


CRUELTY  OF   GENERAL  WINDER.  155 

more  the  details  of  those  atrocious  murders  by  the  Duke  of  Alva 
in  the  Low  Countries,  which  are  always  mentioned  with  a  thrill 
of  horror  throughout  Christendom.  I  have  refreshed  my  mem 
ory  with  the  details  of  the  massacre  of  Saint  Bartholomew,  that 
stands  out  in  history  as  another  of  those  atrocities  beyond 
imagination.  I  have  read  anew  the  horrors  of  the  Spanish 
Inquisition.  But  neither  the  deeds  of  the  Duke  of  Alva  in 
the  Low  Countries,  nor  the  massacre  of  Saint  Bartholomew, 
nor  the  thumb-screws  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  surpass  the 
hideous  crime  of  Anderson ville.  This  is  not  matter  of  mere  pas 
sion  but  of  proof.  Thank  God,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  while  this  Con 
gress  was  under  different  control  from  that  which  exists  here 
to-day,  with  a  Committee  composed  of  both  sides  and  of  both 
branches,  that  tale  of  horror  was  placed  where  it  cannot  be 
denied,  and  where  it  must  remain  as  a  warning. 

I  hold  in  my  hand  the  story  written  out  by  a  committee  of 
Congress.  I  state  that  Winder,  who  is  dead,  was  sent  to  An- 
dersonville  with  a  full  knowledge  of  his  previous  atrocities  in 
Richmond.  These  were  so  terrible,  that  Confederate  papers, 
the  Richmond  Examiner  for  one,  after  Winder  had  gone  thanked 
God  that  Richmond  was  rid  of  his  presence.  We  in  the  North 
knew  from  returning  skeletons  what  Winder  had  accomplished 
at  Belle  Isle  and  Libby  ;  and,  fresh  from  those  accursed  cruel 
ties  to  his  fellow-men,  lie  was  sent  by  Mr.  Jefferson  Davis, 
against  the  protests  of  others  in  the  Confederacy,  to  construct 
this  den  of  horrors  at  Andersonville. 

It  would  be  utterly  beyond  the  scope  of  the  occasion,  and 
beyond  the  limits  of  my  hour,  to  go  into  full  details.  But  in 
arraigning  Mr.  Davis,  I  will  not  ask  any  one  to  take  the  testi 
mony  of  a  Union  soldier.  I  ask  gentlemen  of  this  House  to 
take  only  the  testimony  of  men  who  themselves  were  engaged 
in  and  devoted  to  the  Confederate  cause.  If  that  testimony 
does  not  entirely  justify  the  declaration  I  have  made,  then 
I  will  take  prompt  occasion  to  state  that  I  have  been  in  error 
in  my  reading. 

After  detailing  the  preparation  of  that  prison,  the  arrange 
ments  made  with  studied  cruelty  for  the  victims,  the  report 
which  I  hold  in  my  hand,  and  which  was  concurred  in  by 
Democratic  members  as  well  as  Republican  members  of  Con- 


156  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

gress,  gives  a  condensed  description  of  the  horrors  —  and  I 
beg  members  to  hear  it,  for  it  is  far  more  impressive  than 
any  thing  I  can  say.  After  giving  full  details,  the  report 
states : — 

"  The  subsequent  history  of  Andersonville  has  startled  and  shocked  the 
world  with  a  tale  of  horror,  of  woe,  and  death  before  unheard  and  unknown 
to  civilization.  No  pen  can  describe,  no  painter  sketch,  no  imagination 
comprehend  its  fearful  and  unutterable  iniquity.  It  would  seem  as  if  the 
concentrated  madness  of  earth  and  hell  had  found  its  final  lodgement  in  the 
breast  of  those  who  inaugurated  the  rebellion  and  controlled  the  policy  of 
the  Confederate  government,  and  that  the  prison  at  Andersonville  had  been 
selected  for  the  most  terrible  human  sacrifice  which  the  world  has  ever  seen. 
Into  its  narrow  walls  were  crowded  thirty-five  thousand  enlisted  men,  many 
of  them  the  bravest  and  best,  the  most  devoted  and  heroic  of  those  grand 
armies  which  carried  the  flag  of  their  country  to  final  victory.  For  long 
and  weary  months  here  they  suffered,  maddened,  were  murdered,  and  died. 
Here  they  lingered,  unsheltered  from  the  burning  rays  of  a  tropical  sun  by 
day,  and  drenching  and  deadly  dews  by  night,  in  every  stage  of  mental  and 
physical  disease,  hungered,  emaciated,  starving,  maddened;  festering  with 
annealed  wounds ;  gnawed  by  the  ravages  of  scurvy  and  gangrene  ;  with 
swollen  limb  and  distorted  visage ;  covered  with  vermin  which  they  had  no 
power  to  extirpate ;  exposed  to  the  flooding  rains  which  drove  them  drown 
ing  from  the  miserable  holes  in  which,  like  swine,  they  burrowed ;  parched 
with  thirst,  and  mad  with  hunger;  racked  with  pain,  or  prostrated  with  the 
weakness  of  dissolution;  with  naked  limbs  and  matted  hair;  filthy  with 
smoke  and  mud ;  soiled  with  the  very  excrement  from  which  their  weakness 
would  not  permit  them  to  escape ;  eaten  by  the  gnawing  worms  which  their 
own  wounds  had  engendered;  with  no  bed  but  the  earth  ;  no  covering  save 
the  cloud  or  the  sky ;  these  men,  these  heroes,  born  in  the  image  of  God, 
thus  crouching  and  writhing  in  their  terrible  torture  and  calculating  barbar 
ity,  stand  forth  in  history  as  a  monument  of  the  surpassing  horrors  of  An 
dersonville,  as  it  shall  be  seen  and  read  in  all  future  time,  realizing  in  the 
studied  torments  of  their  prison-house  the  ideal  of  Dante's  4  Inferno '  and 
Milton's 'Hell.'" 

I  venture  the  assertion,  from  reading  the  testimony  upon 
which  the  report  is  based,  that  this  description  is  not  overdrawn. 
I  will  read  but  a  single  paragraph  from  the  testimony  of  Rev. 
William  John  Hamilton,  a  Catholic  priest  at  Macon,  who,  I 
believe,  never  was  in  the  North.  He  is  a  Southern  man,  and 
a  Democrat,  and  a  Catholic  priest.  And  when  you  unite  those 
three  qualities  in  one  man,  you  will  not  find  much  testimony 
that  would  be  strained  in  favor  of  the  Republican  party, 
or  any  member  of  it. 

This  man  had  gone  to  Andersonville  on  a  mission  of  mercy  to 
the  men  of  his  own  faith,  to  administer  to  them  the  rites  of  his 
church  in  their  last  moments.  That  is  the  way  in  which  he 
happened  to  be  a  witness.  I  will  read  his  answer  under  oath  to 


TESTIMONY  OF  REV.  WILLIAM  JOHN  HAMILTON.     157 

a  question  addressed  to  him  in  regard  to  the  bodily  condition  of 
the  prisoners.     He  said,  — 

"  Well,  as  I  said  before,  when  I  went  there  I  was  kept  so  busily  engaged 
in  giving  the  sacrament  to  the  dying  men  that  I  could  not  observe  much,  but 
of  course  I  could  not  keep  my  eyes  closed  as  to  what  I  saw  there.  I  saw  a 
great  many  men  perfectly  naked  [their  clothes  had  been  taken  from  them  by 
rebels,  as  other  testimony  shows],  walking  about  the  stockade  perfectly  nude. 
They  seemed  to  have  lost  all  regard  for  delicacy,  shame,  morality,  or  any 
thing  else.  I  would  frequently  have  to  creep  on  my  hands  and  knees  into 
the  holes  that  the  men  had  burrowed  in  the  ground,  and  stretch  myself  out 
alongside  of  them  to  hear  their  confessions.  I  found  them  almost  living 
in  vermin  in  those  holes;  they  could  not  be  in  any  other  condition  but  a  filthy 
one,  because  they  got  no  soap,  and  no  change  of  clothing,  and  were  there  all 
huddled  up  together." 

Let  me  read  further,  from  the  same  witness,  a  personal  de 
scription  :  — 

"  The  first  person  T  conversed  with  on  entering  the  stockade  was  a  coun 
tryman  of  mine,  a  member  of  the  Catholic  Church,  who  recognized  me  as  a 
clergyman.  I  think  his  name  was  Farrell.  He  was  from  the  north  of  Ire* 
land."  He  came  toward  me  and  introduced  himself.  He  was  quite  a  boy. 
I  do  not  think,  judging  from  his  appearance,  that  he  could  have  been  more 
than  sixteen  years  old.  I  found  him  without  a  hat,  and  without  any  cover 
ing  on  his  feet,  and  without  jacket  or  coat.  He  told  me  that  his  shoes  had 
been  taken  from  him  on  the  battle-field.  I  found  the  boy  suffering  very 
much  from  a  wound  on  his  right  foot,  —  in  fact,  the  foot  was  split  open  like 
an  oyster,  —  and,  on  inquiring  the  cause,  they  told  me  it  was  from  exposure 
to  the  sun  in  the  stockade,  and  not  from  any  wound  received  in  battle.  I 
took  off  my  boots,  and  gave  him  a  pair  of  socks  to  cover  his  feet,  and  told 
him  I  would  bring  him  some  clothing,  as  1  expected  to  return  to  Anderson- 
ville  the  following  week.  I  had  to  return  to  Macon  to  get  another  priest  to 
take  my  place  on  Sunday.  When  I  returned,  on  the  following  week,  on 
inquiring  for  this  man  Farrell,  his  companions  told  me  he  had  stepped 
across  the  dead-line,  and  requested  the  guards  to  shoot  him.  He  was  not 
insane  at  the  time  I  was  conversing  with  him." 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  desire  to  go  into  such  horrible  details 
as  these  for  any  purpose  of  arousing  bad  feeling.  I  wish  only 
to  say  that  the  man  who  administered  the  affairs  of  that  prison 
went  there  by  order  of  Mr.  Davis,  was  sustained  by  him,  and 
the  Rev.  William  John  Hamilton,  from  whose  testimony  I  have 
read,  states  again  that  he  went  to  General  Howell  Cobb,  com 
manding  that  department,  and  asked  that  intelligence  as  to  the 
condition  of  affairs  there  be  transmitted  to  the  Confederate  gov 
ernment  at  Richmond.  There  are  many  proofs  to  show  that 
Mr.  Davis  was  thoroughly  informed  as  to  the  condition  of 
affairs  at  Andersonville. 

One  word  more,  and  I  shall  lay  aside  this  book.     When  the 


153  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

march  of  General  Sherman  in  the  Atlanta  campaign  was  in 
progress,  there  was  danger,  or  supposed  danger,  that  his  army 
might  come  into  the  neighborhood  of  Andersonville ;  and  the 
following  order,  to  which  I  invite  the  attention  of  the  House,  — 
a  regular  military  order,  —  Order  No.  13,  dated,  Headquarters 
Confederate  States  Military  Prison,  Andersonville,  July  27, 
1864,  was  issued  by  Brigadier-General  John  H.  Winder :  — 

"  The  officers  on  duty  and  in  charge  of  the  battery  of  Florida  artillery  at 
the  time  will,  upon  receiving  notice  that  the  enemy  have  approached  within 
seven  miles  of  this  post,  open  fire  upon  the  stockade  with  grape-shot,  with 
out  reference  to  the  situation  beyond  these  lines  of  defence." 

Here,  within  this  horrible  stockade,  were  thirty-five  thgusand 
poor,  helpless,  naked,  starving,  sickened,  dying  men !  The 
Catholic  priest  to  whom  I  have  referred  states  that  he  begged 
General  Ho  well  Cobb  to  represent  that,  if  these  men  could  not 
be  exchanged,  or  could  not  be  relieved  in  any  other  way,  they 
should  be  taken  to  the  Union  lines  in  Florida  and  paroled ;  for 
they  were  shadows,  they  were  skeletons.  Yet  it  was  declared 
in  a  regular  order,  issued  by  the  commandant  of  the  prison,  who 
had  been  specially  selected  by  Mr.  Davis,  that  if  the  Union 
forces  should  come  within  seven  miles,  the  battery  of  Florida 
artillery  should  open  fire  with  grape-shot  on  these  shadows  and 
skeletons  without  the  slightest  possible  regard  to  what  was 
going  on  outside.  And  they  had  stakes  put  up  with  flags  in 
order  that  the  line  of  fire  might  be  properly  directed  from  the 
battery  of  Florida  artillery. 

I  mention  only  one  additional  horror  in  this  dark  valley  of 
cruelty  and  death.  When  one  of  the  tortured  victims  escaped 
from  its  confines  —  as  was  sometimes  though  not  often  the  case 
—  he  was  remorselessly  hunted  down  by  bloodhounds.  In  a 
single  month  twenty-five  escaped,  but  in  the  official  record 
kept  by  the  notorious  Wirz  "  they  were  taken  by  the  doys  before 
the  daily  returns  were  made  out" 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  Administration  of  Martin  Van  Buren,  that 
went  down  in  a  popular  convulsion  in  1840,  had  no  little  of  ob 
loquy  thrown  upon  it  because  it  was  believed  that  the  Seminoles 
in  the  swamps  of  Florida  had  been  hunted  with  bloodhounds. 

Bloodthirsty  dogs  were  sent  after  the  hiding  savages,  and 
the  civilization  and  Christian  feeling  of  the  American  people 


BLOODHOUNDS   AT  ANDERSONVILLE.  159 

revolted  against  the  cruelty.  I  state  here,  upon  the  testimony 
of  witnesses  as  numerous  as  would  require  me  all  day  to  read, 
that  bloodhounds  were  used  at  Andersonville  ;  that  large  packs 
of  them  were  kept,  and  Confederate  officers  directed  them  on 
the  hunt;  that  they  were  sent  after  the  poor  unfortunate, 
shrinking  men  who  by  any  accident  could  get  out  of  that  hor 
rible  stockade. 

I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  arraigning  the  Southern 
people  for  these  inhumanities.  God  forbid  that  I  should  charge 
sympathy  with  such  wrongs  upon  the  mass  of  any  people. 
There  were  many  evidences  of  great  uneasiness  in  the  South 
about  the  condition  of  Andersonville.  I  know  that  leading 
officers  of  the  Confederacy  protested  against  it.  I  know  that 
many  of  the  subordinate  officers  protested  against  it.  I  know 
that  a  distinguished  gentleman  from  North  Carolina,  now  rep 
resenting  his  State  in  the  other  end  of  the  Capitol,  protested 
against  it.  But  I  regret  to  say  that  these  wrongs  were  known 
to  the  Confederate  Congress,  they  were  known  at  the  doorway 
of  their  Senate,  along  the  corridors  of  their  Capitol.  A  gen 
tleman  whom  I  see  at  this  moment,  who  served  in  the  Confed 
erate  Congress,  and  who  had  before  served  in  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States,  brought  them  to  the  attention  of  the  Confed 
erate  Congress,  and  I  class  him  with  those  whose  humanity  was 
never  burned  out  by  the  angry  fires  of  the  rebellion.  I  allude 
to  the  Honorable  and  now  venerable  Henry  Stuart  Foote. 

It  is  one  of  the  rank  offenses  of  Jefferson  Davis,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  besides  conniving  at  the  cruelties  at  Andersonville,  he 
concealed  them  from  the  Southern  people.  He  labored  not 
only  to  conceal  them,  but  to  make  false  statements  about  them. 
We  have  obtained,  and  have  now  in  the  Congressional  Library, 
a  complete  series  of  Mr.  Davis's  messages  —  the  official  imprint 
from  Richmond.  I  have  looked  over  them,  and  I  have  an 
extract  here  from  his  message  of  Nov.  7,  1864,  at  the  very 
time  when  these  horrors  were  at  their  height  and  their  worst. 
Mr.  Davis  said  :  — 

"  The  solicitude  of  the  Government  for  the  relief  of  our  captive  fellow- 
citizens  has  known  no  abatement,  but  has  on  the  contrary  been  still  more 
deeply  evoked  by  the  additional  sufferings  to  which  they  have  been  wantonly 
subjected  by  deprivation  of  adequate  food,  clothing,  and  fuel,  which  they 
were  not  even  permitted  to  purchase  from  the  prison  sutler." 


160  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

And  he  adds  that  the  — 

"  Enemy  attempted  to  excuse  their  barbarous  treatment  by  the  unfounded  allega 
tion  that  it  was  retaliatory  fur  Like  conduct  on  our  part." 

In  answer  to  this  atrocious  slander  by  the  Confederate  Presi 
dent,  now  become  historic,  I  am  justified  in  declaring  that  there 
is  not  a  Confederate  soldier  living  who  has  any  credit  as  a  man 
in  his  community,  and  who  was  a  prisoner  in  the  hands  of  the 
Union  forces,  who  will  say  that  he  ever  was  cruelly  treated ; 
that  he  ever  was  deprived  of  just  such  rations  as  the  Union 
soldiers  had  —  the  same  food  and  the  same  clothing. 

Mr.  COOK  of  Georgia.  Thousands  of  them  say  it  —  thou 
sands  of  them  ;  men  of  as  high  character  as  any  in  this  House. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  I  take  issue  upon  that.  There  is  not  one  who 
can  substantiate  it  —  not  one,  As  for  measures  of  retaliation, 
although  goaded  by  this  terrific  treatment  of  our  friends  im 
prisoned  by  Mr.  Davis,  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  specifi 
cally  refused  to  pass  a  resolution  of  retaliation,  as  contrary  to 
modern  civilization  and  to  the  first  precepts  of  Christianity. 
No  retaliation  was  attempted  or  justified.  It  was  forbidden, 
and  Mr.  Davis  knew  it  was  forbidden  as  well  as  I  knew  it  or 
any  other  man,  because  what  took  place  in  Washington  or  what 
took  place  at  Richmond  was  known  on  either  side  of  the  line 
within  a  day  or  two  thereafter. 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  not  a  proposition  to  punish  Jefferson 
Davis.  Nobody  is  attempting  that.  I  thought  the  indictment 
of  Mr.  Davis  at  Richmond,  under  the  administration  of  Presi 
dent  Johnson,  was  not  justifiable,  for  he  was  indicted  only  for 
that  of  which  he  was  guilty  in  common  with  all  others  who 
went  into  the  Confederate  revolt.  But  here  and  now  I  ex 
press  my  firm  conviction  that  there  is  not  a  government,  not  a 
civilized  government  on  the  face  of  the  globe  —  I  am  very  sure 
there  is  not  a  European  government  —  that  would  not  have 
arrested  Mr.  Davis  at  the  close  of  the  war,  and  when  they  had 
him  in  their  power  would  not  have  tried  him  for  maltreatment 
of  the  prisoners  of  war,  and  shot  him  within  thirty  days. 
France,  Russia,  England,  Germany,  Austria,  any  one  of  them 
would  have  done  it.  The  poor  victim  Wirz  deserved  his  death 
for  brutal  treatment  and  murder  of  many  victims,  but  it  was 


NUMBER  WHO   DIED  AT  ANDERSOXVILLE.  161 

weak  policy  on  the  part  of  our  government  to  allow  Jefferson 
Davis  to  go  at  large  and  to  hang  Wirz.  Wirz  was  nothing  in 
the  world  but  a  mere  subordinate,  acting  under  orders,  and 
there  was  no  special  reason  for  singling  him  out  for  death.  I 
do  not  say  he  did  not  deserve  it.  He  deserved  no  mercy,  but, 
as  I  have  often  said,  his  execution  seemed  like  passing  over  the 
president,  superintendent,  and  board  of  directors  in  the  case 
of  a  great  railway  accident  and  hanging  the  brakeman  of  the 
rear  car. 

I  repeat,  there  is  no  proposition  here  to  punish  Jefferson 
Davis.  Nobody  is  seeking  to  do  it.  That  time  has  gone  by. 
The  statute  of  limitations,  the  common  feelings  of  humanity, 
supervene  for  his  benefit.  But  what  you  ask  us  to  do  is  to 
declare  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  both  branches  of  Congress 
that  we  consider  Mr.  Davis  worthy  to  fill  the  highest  offices  in 
the  United  States,  if  he  can  find  a  constituency  to  indorse  him. 
He  is  already  a  voter ;  he  is  at  liberty  to  engage  in  any  calling ; 
he  can  buy  and  he  can  sell ;  he  can  go  and  he  can  come.  He 
is  as  free  as  any  man  in  the  United  States.  It  is  now  proposed 
in  the  pending  bill  for  which  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania 
stands  sponsor,  that  Mr.  Davis,  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the 
Senate  and  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  House,  shall  be  declared 
eligible  and  worthy  to  fill  any  office  under  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  including  the  Chief  Magistracy  thereof.  For  one, 
upon  full  deliberation,  I  refuse  my  assent  to  that  proposition. 

One  word,  Mr.  Speaker,  by  way  of  explanation,  which  I 
omitted.  It  has  been  said  in  mitigation  of  Jefferson  Davis's 
responsibility  for  the  Andersonville  horror,  that  the  men  who 
died  there  (I  think  the  number  was  about  twelve  thousand) 
fell  a  prey  to  an  epidemic,  and  died  of  a  disease  which  could 
not  be  averted.  The  record  shows  this  to  be  untrue.  Out  of 
35,000  men  about  33  per  cent  died ;  while  of  the  soldiers 
encamped  near  by  to  guard  the  prisoners,  only  one  man  in  four 
hundred  died ;  that  is,  within  half  a  mile,  only  one  in  four 
hundred  died,  while  inside  the  stockade  one  in  three  died. 

As  to  the  general  question  of  amnesty,  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I 
have  already  said,  it  is  too  late  to  debate  it.  Whether  the 
general  and  generous  remission  of  political  disability  by  the 
Republicans  has  been  in  all  respects  wise,  or  whether  it  has  been 


162  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

unwise,  I  will  not  detain  the  House  here  and  now  to  discuss. 
Even  if  I  had  a  strong  conviction  upon  that  question,  I  do  not 
know  that  it  would  be  productive  of  any  good  to  enunciate  it 
at  this  time.  But  I  must  say,  it  is  a  singular  spectacle  that 
the  Republicans,  in  possession  of  the  entire  Government,  have 
deliberately  called  back  into  political  power  the  leading  men  of 
the  South,  nearly  every  one  of  whom  is  their  bitter  and  relent 
less  and  malignant  foe ;  and  to-day,  from  the  Potomac  to  the  Rio 
Grande,  the  very  men  who  have  received  this  amnesty  are  as 
busy  as  they  were  before  the  war  in  consolidating  the  old  slave 
States  into  one  compact  political  organization.  We  see  the 
banner  held  out,  blazoned  again  with  the  inscription  that  with 
the  united  South  and  a  few  votes  from  the  North  this  country 
can  be  governed.  I  want  the  people  to  understand  the  char 
acter  of  the  movement;  to  appreciate  its  animus,  to  measure 
its  intent.  But  I  do  not  think  that  offering  amnesty  to  the 
seven  hundred  and  fifty  men  who  are  now  Avithout  it  will 
hasten  or  retard  the  course  of  events  in  the  South. 

It  is  often  said  that  "we  shall  lift  Mr.  Davis  again  into 
great  consequence  by  refusing  him  amnesty."  That  is  not  for 
me  to  consider.  I  only  see  before  me,  when  his  name  is  pre 
sented,  a  man  who,  by  a  wave  of  his  hand,  by  a  nod  of  his  head, 
could  have  put  an  end  to  tjie  atrocious  cruelties  at  Ander- 
sonville ! 

Some  of  us  had  kinsmen  there,  many  of  us  had  friends  there, 
all  of  us  had  countrymen  there.  In  the  name  of  those  kins 
men,  friends,  and  countrymen,  I  here  protest,  and  shall  with 
my  vote  protest,  against  calling  back  and  crowning  with  the 
honors  of  full  American  citizenship  the  man  who  stands  respon 
sible  for  that  organized  murder. 


REMONETIZATIOX  OF  SILVER.  163 


REMONETIZATION    OF    SILVER. 


[Speech  of  James  G.  Elaine  of  Maine,  delivered  in  the  United  States  Senate, 
Thursday,  Feb.  7,  1878. 

The  Senate,  as  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
bill  (H.  R.  No.  1093)  to  authorize  the  free  coinage  of  the  standard  silver  dollar 
and  to  restore  its  legal-tender  character.] 

ME.  PRESIDENT,  —  The  discussion  on  the  question  of  remon- 
etizing  silver  has  been  prolonged  and  exhaustive.  I  may  not 
expect  to  add  much  to  its  value,  but  I  promise  not  to  add  much 
to  its  length.  I  shall  endeavor  to  consider  facts  rather  than 
theories,  to  state  conclusions  rather  than  arguments. 

I  believe  gold  and  silver  coin  to  be  the  money  of  the  Consti 
tution  —  indeed,  the  money  of  the  American  people  anterior  to 
the  Constitution,  money  which  the  organic  law  of  the  Republic 
recognized  as  independent  of  its  own  existence.  No  power 
was  conferred  on  Congress  to  declare  that  either  metal  should 
not  be  money.  Congress  has  therefore,  in  my  judgment,  no 
more  power  to  demonetize  silver  than  to  demonetize  gold ;  no 
more  power  to  demonetize  either  than  to  demonetize  both.  In 
this  statement  I  am  but  repeating  the  weighty  dictum  of  the 
first  of  Constitutional  lawyers.  "  I  am  certainly  of  opinion," 
said  Mr.  Webster,  "  that  gold  and  silver,  at  rates  fixed  by  Con 
gress,  constitute  the  legal  standard  of  value  in  this  country,  and 
that  neither  Congress  nor  any  State  has  authority  to  establish 
any  other  standard  or  to  displace  this  standard"  Few  persons 
can  be  found,  I  apprehend,  who  will  maintain  that  Congress 
possesses  the  power  to  demonetize  both  gold  and  silver,  or  that 
Congress  could  be  justified  in  prohibiting  the  coinage  of  both  ; 
and  yet  in  logic  and  legal  construction  it  would  be  difficult  to 
show  where  and  why  the  power  of  Congress  over  silver  is  greater 
than  over  gold  —  greater  over  either  than  over  both.  If,  there- 


164  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

fore,  silver  has  been  demonetized,  I  am  in  favor  of  remonetizing 
it.  If  its  coinage  lias  been  prohibited,  I  am  in  favor  of  ordering 
it  to  be  resumed.  If  it  has  been  restricted,  I  am  in  favor  of 
ordering  it  to  be  enlarged. 

What  power,  then,  has  Congress  over  gold  and  silver?  It 
has  the  exclusive  power  to  coin  them ;  the  exclusive  power  to 
regulate  their  value,  —  very  great,  very  wise,  very  necessary 
powers,  for  the  discreet  exercise  of  which  a  critical  occasion  has 
now  arisen.  However  men  may  differ  about  causes  and  pro 
cesses,  all  will  admit  that  within  a  few  years  a  great  disturbance 
has  taken  place  in  the  relative  values  of  gold  and  silver,  and 
that  silver  is  worth  less  or  gold  is  worth  more  in  the  money 
markets  of  the  world  in  1878  than  in  1873,  when  the  further 
coinage  of  silver  dollars  was  prohibited  in  this  country.  To 
remonetize  it  now  as  though  essential  conditions  had  not 
changed,  is  willfully  and  blindly  to  deceive  ourselves.  If  our 
demonetization  were  the  only  cause  for  the  decline  in  the  value 
of  silver,  then  remonetizatioii  would  be  its  proper  and  effectual 
cure.  But  other  causes,  beyond  our  control,  have  been  far 
more  potentially  operative  than  the  simple  fact  that  Congress 
prohibited  its  further  coinage.  As  legislators  we  are  bound 
to  take  cognizance  of  these  causes.  The  demonetization  of 
silver  in  the  German  Empire  and  the  consequent  partial,  or 
well-nigh  complete,  suspension  of  coinage  in  the  governments 
of  the  Latin  Union,  have  been  the  leading  causes  for  the  rapid 
decline  in  the  value  of  silver.  I  do  not  think  the  over-supply 
of  silver  has  had,  in  comparison  with  these  other  causes,  an 
appreciable  influence  in  the  decline  of  its  value,  because  its 
over-supply  with  respect  to  gold  in  these  later  years  has  not 
been  so  great  as  was  the  over-supply  of  gold  with  respect  to 
silver  for  many  years  after  the  mines  of  California  and  Aus 
tralia  were  opened ;  and  the  over-supply  of  gold  from  those 
rich  sources  did  not  affect  the  relative  positions  and  uses  of  the 
two  rnetals  in  any  European  country. 

I  believe  then,  if  Germany  were  to  remonetize  silver  and  the 
kingdoms  and  states  of  the  Latin  Union  were  to  re-open  their 
mints,  silver  would  at  once  resume  its  former  relation  with  gold. 
The  European  countries  when  driven  to  full  remonetization,  as 
I  believe  they  will  be  in  the  end,  must  of  necessity  adopt  their 


REMOXETIZATIOX  OF   SILVER.  165 

old  ratio  of  fifteen  and  a  half  of  silver  to  one  of  gold,  and  we 
shall  then  be  compelled  to  adopt  the  same  instead  of  our  former 
ratio  of  sixteen  to  one.  If  we  fail  to  do  this  we  shall,  as  before, 
lose  our  silver,  which  like  all  things  else  seeks  the  highest 
market ;  and  if  fifteen  and  a  half  pounds  of  silver  will  buy  as 
much  gold  in  Europe  as  sixteen  pounds  will  buy  in  America, 
the  silver,  of  course,  will  go  to  Europe.  But  our  line  of  policy 
in  a  joint  movement  with  other  nations  to  remonetize  is  simple 
and  direct.  The  difficult  problem  is  what  we  shall  do  when 
we  aim  to  re-establish  silver  without  the  co-operation  of  Eu 
ropean  powers,  and  really  as  an  advance  movement  to  coerce 
those  powers  into  the  same  policy.  Evidently  the  first  dictate 
of  prudence  is  to  coin  such  a  dollar  as  will  not  only  do  justice 
among  our  citizens  at  home,  but  will  prove  a  protection  —  an 
absolute  barricade  —  against  the  gold  mono-metallists  of  Europe, 
who,  whenever  the  opportunity  offers,  will  quickly  draw  from 
us  the  one  hundred  and  sixty  millions  of  gold  coin  which  we 
now  hold.  If  we  coin  a  silver  dollar  of  full  legal-tender,  obvi 
ously  below  the  current  value  of  the  gold  dollar,  we  are  simply 
opening  our  doors  and  inviting  Europe  to  take  our  gold.  With 
our  gold  flowing  out  from  us  we  shall  be  forced  to  the  single 
silver  standard  and  our  relations  with  the  leading  commercial 
countries  of  the  world  will  be  not  only  embarrassed  but 
crippled. 

The  question  before  Congress  then  —  sharply  defined  in  the 
pending  House  bill  —  is,  whether  it  is  now  safe  and  expedient 
to  offer  free  coinage  to  the  silver  dollar  of  41 2 i  grains,  with 
the  mints  of  the  Latin  Union  closed  and  Germany  not  permit 
ting  silver  to  be  coined  as  money.  At  current  rates  of  silver, 
the  free  coinage  of  a  dollar  containing  412^  grains,  worth  in 
gold  about  ninety-two  cents,  gives  an  illegitimate  profit  to  the 
owner  of  the  bullion,  enabling  him  to  take  ninety-two  cents' 
worth  of  it  to  the  mint  and  get  it  stamped  as  coin  and  force 
his  neighbor  to  take  it  for  a  full  dollar.  This  is  an  unfair 
advantage  which  the  Government  has  no  right  to  give  to  the 
owner  of  silver  bullion,  and  which  defrauds  the  man  who  is 
forced  to  take  the  dollar.  It  assuredly  follows  that  if  we  give 
free  coinage  to  this  dollar  of  inferior  value  and  put  it  in  circu 
lation,  we  do  so  at  the  expense  of  our  better  coinage  in  gold; 


166  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIOXS. 

and  unless  we  expect  the  invariable  experience  of  other  nations 
to  be  in  some  mysterious  way  suspended  for  our  peculiar  bene 
fit,  we  inevitably  lose  our  gold  coin.  It  will  flow  out  from  us 
with  the  certainty  and  with  the  force  of  the  tides.  Gold  has 
indeed  remained  with  us  in  considerable  amount  during  the 
circulation  of  the  inferior  currency  of  the  legal  tender;  but 
that  was  because  there  were  two  great  uses  reserved  by  law  for 
gold,  —  the  collection  of  customs  and  the  payment  of  interest  on 
the  public  debt.  But  if  the  inferior  silver  coin  is  also  to  be 
used  for  these  two  reserved  purposes,  then  gold  has  no  tie  to 
bind  it  to  us.  What  gain,  therefore,  should  we  make  for  the 
circulating  medium,  if  on  opening  the  gate  for  silver  to  floAv  in, 
we  open  a  still  wider  gate  for  gold  to  flow  out?  If  I  were  to 
venture  upon  a  dictum  on  the  silver  question,  I  should  declare 
that  until  Europe  remonetizes  silver  we  cannot  afford  to  coin  a 
dollar  as  low  as  41 2 £  grains.  After  Europe  remonetizes  on  the 
old  standard,  we  cannot  afford  to  coin  a  dollar  above  400 
grains.  If  we  coin  too  low  a  dollar  before  general  remonetiza- 
tion  our  gold  will  leave  us.  If  we  coin  too  high  a  dollar  after 
general  remonetization  our  silver  will  leave  us.  It  is  only  an 
equated  value  before  and  after  general  remonetization  that  will 
preserve  both  gold  and  silver  to  us. 

Consider  further  what  injustice  would  be  done  to  every  holder 
of  a  legal-tender  or  national-bank  note.  That  large  volume  of 
paper  money  —  in  excess  of  seven  hundred  millions  of  dollars 
—  is  now  worth  between  ninety-eight  and  ninety-nine  cents  on 
the  dollar  in  gold  coin.  The  holders  of  it,  who  are  indeed  our 
entire  population  from  the  poorest  to  the  richest,  have  been 
promised  from  the  hour  of  its  issue  that  their  paper  money 
would  one  day  be  as  good  as  gold.  To  pay  silver  for  the  green 
back  is  a  full  compliance  with  this  promise  and  this  obligation, 
provided  the  silver  is  made  as  it  always  has  been  hitherto,  as 
good  as  gold.  To  make  our  silver  coin  even  three  per  cent  less 
valuable  than  gold  inflicts  at  once  a  loss  of  more  than  twenty 
millions  of  dollars  on  the  holders  of  our  paper  money.  To 
make  a  silver  dollar  worth  but  ninety-two  cents  precipitates 
on  the  same  class  a  loss  of  nearly  sixty  millions  of  dollars. 
For  whatever  the  value  of  the  silver  dollar  is,  the  whole  paper 
issue  of  the  country  will  sink  to  its  standard  when  its  coinage 


REMONETIZATION  OF  SILVER.  167 

is  authorized  and  its  circulation  becomes  general  in  the  chan 
nels  of  trade.  Some  one  in  conversation  with  Commodore 
Vanderbilt  during  one  of  the  many  freight  competitions  of  the 
trunk  lines  said,  "  It  cannot  be  that  the  Canadian  Railroad  has 
sufficient  carrying  capacity  to  compete  with  your  great  line  ?  " 
—  "  That  is  true,"  replied  the  Commodore,  "  but  they  can  fix  a 
rate  and  force  us  down  to  it."  Were  Congress  to  pass  a  law 
to-day  declaring  that  every  legal-tender  note  and  every  national- 
bank  note  shall  hereafter  pass  for  only  ninety-six  or  ninety- 
seven  cents  on  the  dollar,  there  is  not  a  constituency  in  the 
United  States  that  would  re-elect  a  man  who  supported  it,  and 
in  many  districts  the  representative  would  be  lucky  if  he  es 
caped  merely  with  a  defeat  at  the  polls. 

Yet  it  is  almost  mathematically  demonstrable  that  the  same 
effect  will  follow  from  the  coinage  of  an  inferior  silver  dollar. 
Assurances  from  empirics  and  scientists  in  finance  that  remone- 
tization  of  the  former  dollar  will  at  once  and  permanently 
advance  its  value  to  par  with  gold,  are  worth  little  in  the 
face  of  opposing  and  controlling  facts.  The  first  effect  of 
issuing  any  silver  dollar  that  will  pay  customs  dues  and  inter 
est  on  the  public  debt,  will  undoubtedly  be  to  raise  it  to  a  prac 
tical  equality  with  gold ;  but  that  condition  will  last  only  until 
the  amount  needful  for  customs  shall  fill  the  channels  of  its  use  ; 
and  the  overflow  going  into  general  circulation  will  rapidly  set 
tle  to  its  normal  and  actual  value,  and  then  the  discount  will 
come  on  the  volume  of  the  paper  currency,  which  will  sink, 
pari  passu,  with  the  silver  dollar  in  which  it  is  made  redeem 
able.  That  remonetization  will  have  a  considerable  effect  in 
advancing  the  value  of  the  silver  dollar  is  very  probable,  but 
not  enough  to  overcome  the  difference  now  existing,  —  a  differ 
ence  resulting  from  causes  independent  of  our  control  in  the 
United  States. 

The  responsibility  of  re-establishing  silver  in  its  ancient  and 
honorable  place  as  money  in  Europe  and  America,  devolves 
really  upon  the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  If  we  act  here 
with  wisdom  and  firmness,  we  shall  not  only  successfully  re- 
monetize  silver,  and  bring  it  into  general  use  as  money  in  our 
own  country,  but  the  influence  of  our  example  will  be  potential 
among  European  nations,  with  the  possible  exception  of  Eng- 


168  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

land.  Indeed,  our  annual  indebtment  to  Europe  is  so  great 
that,  if  we  have  the  right  to  pay  it  in  silver,  we  necessarily 
coerce  those  nations,  by  the  strongest  of  all  forces,  self-interest, 
to  aid  us  in  upholding  the  value  of  silver  as  money.  But  if  we 
attempt  the  remonetization  on  a  basis  which  is  obviously  below 
the  fair  standard  of  value  as  it  now  exists,  we  incur  all  the  evil 
consequences  of  failure  at  home,  and  the  certainty  of  successful 
opposition  abroad.  We  are,  and  shall  be,  the  greatest  produ 
cers  of  silver  in  the  world,  and  we  have  a  larger  stake  in  its 
complete  monetization  than  any  other  country.  The  difference 
to  the  United  States,  between  the  general  acceptance  and  the 
general  destruction  of  silver  as  money  in  the  commercial  world, 
will  possibly  within  the  next  half-century  equal  the  entire 
bonded  debt  of  the  Nation.  But,  to  gain  this  advantage,  we 
must  make  it  actual  money,  the  accepted  equal  of  gold  in  the 
markets  of  the  world.  Remonetization  here,  followed  by  gen 
eral  remonetization  in  Europe,  will  secure  to  the  United  States 
the  most  stable  basis  for  its  currency  that  we  have  ever  enjoyed, 
and  will  effectually  aid  in  solving  all  the  problems  by  which 
our  financial  situation  is  surrounded. 

On  the  much-vexed  and  long-mooted  question  of  a  bi-metallic 
or  mono-metallic  standard,  my  own  views  are  sufficiently  indi 
cated  in  the  remarks  I  have  made.  I  believe  the  struggle  now 
going  on  in  this  country,  and  in  other  countries,  for  a  single 
gold  standard,  would,  if  successful,  produce  disaster  in  the  end 
throughout  the  commercial  world.  The  destruction  of  silver  as 
money,  and  the  establishment  of  gold  as  the  sole  unit  of  value, 
must  have  a  ruinous  effect  on  all  forms  of  property  except  those 
investments  which  yield  a  fixed  return  in  money.  These  would 
be  enormously  enhanced  in  value,  and  would  gain  a  dispropor 
tionate,  and  therefore  unfair,  advantage  over  every  other  species 
of  property.  Tf,  as  the  most  reliable  statistics  affirm,  there  are 
nearly  seven  thousand  millions  of  coin  or  bullion  in  the  world, 
not  very  unequally  divided  between  gold  and  silver,  it  is  impos 
sible  to  strike  silver  out  of  existence  as  money  without  results 
which  will  prove  distressing  to  millions,  and  utterly  disastrous 
to  tens  ot  thousands.  Alexander  Hamilton,  in  his  able  and 
invaluable  report  in  1791  on  the  establishment  of  a  mint,  de 
clared  that  "  to  annul  the  use  of  either  gold  or  silver  as  money 


REMOXETIZATION   OF   SILVER.  169 

is  to  abridge  the  quantity  of  circulating  medium,  and  is  liable 
to  all  the  objections  which  arise  from  a  comparison  of  the  bene 
fits  of  a  full  circulation  with  the  evils  of  a  scanty  circulation." 
I  take  no  risk  in  saying  that  the  benefits  of  a  full  circulation, 
and  the  evils  of  a  scanty  circulation,  are  both  immeasurably 
greater  to-day  than  they  were  when  Mr.  Hamilton  uttered  these 
weighty  words,  always  provided  that  the  circulation  is  one  of 
actual  money,  and  not  of  depreciated  "  promises  to  pay." 

In  the  report  from  which  I  have  already  quoted,  Mr.  Hamil 
ton  argues  at  length  in  favor  of  a  double  standard,  and  all 
the  subsequent  experience  of  ninety  years  has  brought  out  no 
clearer  statement  of  the  case,  or  developed  a  more  complete 
comprehension  of  this  subtle  and  difficult  subject.  "  On  the 
whole,"  says  Mr.  Hamilton,  "it  seems  most  advisable  not  to 
attach  the  unit  exclusively  to  either  of  the  metals,  because  this 
cannot  be  done  effectually  without  destroying  the  office  and 
character  of  one  of  them  as  money,  and  reducing  it  to  the  situ 
ation  of  mere  merchandise."  Mr.  Hamilton  wisely  concludes 
that  this  reduction  of  either  of  the  metals  to  mere  merchandise 
(I  again  quote  his  exact  words)  "  would  probably  be  a  greater 
evil  than  occasional  variations  in  the  unit  from  the  fluctuations 
in  the  relative  value  of  the  metals,  especially  if  care  be  taken  to 
regulate  the  proportion  between  them,  with  an  eye  to  their  ave 
rage  commercial  value."  I  do  not  think  that  this  country,  hold 
ing  so  vast  a  proportion  of  the  world's  supply  of  silver  in  its 
mountains  and  its  mines,  can  afford  to  reduce  the  metal  to  the 
"  situation  of  mere  merchandise."  If  silver  ceases  to  be  used 
as  money  in  Europe  and  America,  the  mines  of  the  Pacific 
slope  will  be  closed  and  dead.  Mining  enterprises  of  the  gigan 
tic  scale  existing  in  this  country  cannot  be  carried  on  to  provide 
backs  for  mirrors,  and  to  manufacture  cream-pitchers  and  sugar- 
bowls.  A  source  of  incalculable  wealth  to  this  entire  country  is 
destroyed  the  moment  silver  is  permanently  disused  as  money. 
It  is  for  us  to  check  that  tendency,  and  bring  the  continent  of 
Europe  back  to  the  full  recognition  of  the  value  of  the  metal 
as  a  medium  of  exchange. 

The  question  of  beginning  anew  the  coinage  of  silver  dollars 
has  aroused  much  discussion  as  to  its  effect  on  the  public  credit. 
The  senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Matthews]  placed  this  phase  of 


170  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

the  subject  in  the  very  forefront  of  the  debate  —  insisting,  pre 
maturely  and  illogically,  I  think,  on  a  sort  of  judicial  construc 
tion  in  advance,  by  concurrent  resolution,  of  a  certain  law  in 
case  that  law  should  happen  to  be  passed  by  Congress.  My 
own  view  on  this  question  can  be  stated  very  briefly.  I  believe 
the  public  creditor  can  afford  to  be  paid  in  any  silver  dollar  that 
the  United  States  can  afford  to  coin  and  circulate.  We  have 
forty  thousand  millions  of  property  in  this  country,  and  a  wise 
self-interest  will  not  permit  us  to  overturn  its  relations  by  seek 
ing  for  an  inferior  dollar  wherewith  to  settle  the  honest  demands 
of  any  creditor.  The  question  might  be  different  from  a  merely 
selfish  point  of  view  if,  on  paying  the  dollar  to  the  public  cred 
itor,  it  would  disappear  after  performing  that  function.  But  the 
trouble  is  that  the  inferior  dollar  you  pay  the  public  creditor 
remains  in  circulation,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  better  dollar. 
That  which  you  pay  at  home  will  stay  here ;  that  which  you 
send  abroad  will  come  back.  The  interest  of  the  public  cred 
itor  is  indissolubly  bound  up  with  the  interest  of  the  whole 
people.  Whatever  affects  him  affects  us  all ;  and  the  evil 
that  we  might  inflict  upon  him  by  pa'ying  an  inferior  dollar 
would  recoil  upon  us  with  a  vengeance  as  manifold  as  the  aggre 
gate  wealth  of  the  Republic  transcends  the  comparatively  small 
limits  of  our  bonded  debt.  Remember  that  our  aggregate 
wealth  is  always  increasing,  and  our  bonded  debt  steadily  grow 
ing  less !  If  paid  in  a  good  silver  dollar,  the  bondholder  has 
nothing  to  complain  of.  If  paid  in  an  inferior  silver  dollar,  he 
has  the  same  grievance  that  will  be  uttered  still  more  plaintively 
by  the  holder  of  the  legal-tender  note  and  of  the  national-bank 
bill,  by  the  pensioner,  by  the  day  laborer,  and  by  the  count 
less  host  of  the  poor,  whom  we  have  with  us  always,  and  on 
whom  the  most  distressing  effect  of  inferior  money  will  be 
ultimately  precipitated. 

But  I  must  say,  Mr.  President,  that  the  specific  demand  for 
the  payment  of  our  bonds  in  gold  coin,  and  in  nothing  else, 
oomes  with  an  ill  grace  from  certain  quarters.  European  criti 
cism  is  leveled  against  us,  and  hard  names  are  hurled  at  us 
across  the  ocean,  for  simply  daring  to  state  that  the  letter  of 
our  law  declares  the  bonds  to  be  payable  in  standard  coin 
of  July  14,  1870 ;  explicitly  declared  so,  and  declared  so  in  the 


REMOXETIZATION   OF  SILVER.  171 

interest  of  the  public  creditor,  and  the  declaration  inserted  in 
the  very  body  of  the  eight  hundred  millions  of  bonds  that  have 
been  issued  since  that  date.  Beyond  all  doubt,  the  silver 
dollar  was  included  in  the  standard  coins  of  that  public  act. 
Payment  at  that  time  would  have  been  as  acceptable  and  as 
undisputed  in  silver  as  in'  gold  dollars,  for  both  were  equally 
valuable  in  the  European  as  well  as  in  the  American  market. 
Seven-eighths  of  all  our  bonds  owned  out  of  the  country  are 
held  in  Germany  and  in  Holland.  Germany  has  demonetized 
silver,  and  Holland  has  been  forced  thereby  to  suspend  its  coin 
age,  since  the  subjects  of  both  powers  purchased  our  securities. 
The  German  Empire,  the  very  year  after  we  made  our  specific 
declaration  for  paying  our  bonds  in  coin,  passed  a  law  destroy 
ing,  so  far  as  lay  in  its  power,  the  value  of  silver  as  money. 
I  do  not  say  that  it  was  specially  aimed  at  this  country,  but  it 
was  passed  regardless  of  its  effect  upon  us,  and  was  followed, 
according  to  public  and  undenied  statement,  by  a  large  invest 
ment  on  the  part  of  the  German  Government  in  our  bonds,  with 
a  view,  it  was  understood,  of  holding  them  as  a  coin  reserve  for 
drawing  gold  from  us  to  aid  in  establishing  their  new  gold 
standard  at  home.  Thus,  by  one  move  the  German  Govern 
ment  destroyed,  so  far  as  lay  in  its  power,  the  then  existing 
value  of  silver  as  money,  enhanced  consequently  the  value  of 
gold,  and  then  got  into  position  to  draw  gold  from  us  at  the 
moment  of  their  need,  which  would  also  be  the  moment  of  our 
own  sorest  distress.  I  do  not  say  that  the  German  Govern 
ment,  in  these  successive  steps,  did  a  single  thing  which  it  had 
not  a  perfect  right  to  do,  but  I  do  say  that  the  subjects  of  that 
Empire  have  no  reason  to  complain  of  our  Government  for  the 
initial  step  which  has  impaired  the  value  of  one  of  our  standard 
coins.  The  German  Government,  by  joining  with  us  in  the  re- 
monetization  of  silver,  can  place  that  standard  coin  in  its  old 
position,  and  make  it  as  easy  for  this  Government  to  pay  and 
as  profitable  for  their  subjects  to  receive  the  one  metal  as  the 
other. 

When  we  pledged  the  public  creditor  in  1870  that  our  obli 
gations  should  be  paid  in  the  standard  coin  of  that  date,  silver 
bullion  was  worth  in  the  London  market  a  fraction  over  sixty 
pence  per  ounce ;  its  average  for  the  past  eight  months  has 


172  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

been  about  fifty-four  pence  ;  the  price  reckoned  in  gold  in  both 
cases.  But  the  large  difference  is  due  in  part  to  the  rise  of  gold 
as  well  as  to  the  fall  of  silver.  Allowing  for  both  causes  and 
dividing  the  difference,  it  will  be  found,  in  the  judgment  of 
many  of  the  wisest  men  in  this  country,  perfectly  safe  to  issue 
a  dollar  of  425  grains  standard  silver ;  as  one  that,  anticipating 
the  full  and  legitimate  influence  of  remonetization,  will  equate 
itself  with  the  gold  dollar,  and  effectually  guard  against  the 
drain  of  our  gold  during  the  time  necessary  for  international 
conference  in  regard  to  the  general  re-establishment  of  sil 
ver  as  money.  When  that  general  re-establishment  shall  be 
effected  with  a  coinage  of  fewer  grains,  the  dollar  which  I  am 
now  advocating  will  not  cause  loss  or  embarrassment  to  any 
one.  The  miner  of  the  ore,  the  owner  of  the  bullion,  the 
holder  of  the  coin,  and  the  Government  that  issues  it,  will  all 
in  turn  be  benefited.  It  will  yield  a  profit  on  recoinage  and 
will  be  advantageously  employed  in  our  commercial  relations 
with  foreign  countries.  Meanwhile  it  will  insure  to  our  labor 
ers  at  home  a  full  dollar's  pay  for  a  dollar's  worth  of  work. 

I  think  we  owe  this  to  the  American  laborer.  Ever  since  we 
demonetized  the  old  dollar  we  have  been  running  our  mints 
at  full  speed,  coining  a  new  silver  dollar  for  the  use  of  the 
Chinese  cooly  and  the  Indian  pariah  —  a  dollar  containing  420 
grains  of  standard  silver,  with  its  superiority  over  our  ancient 
dollar  ostentatiously  engraved  on  its  reverse  side.  To  these 
"  outside  barbarians  "  we  send  this  superior  dollar,  bearing  all 
our  national  emblems,  our  patriotic  devices,  our  pious  inscrip 
tions,  our  goddess  of  liberty,  our  defiant  eagle,  our  federal 
unity,  our  trust  in  God.  This  dollar  contains  7£  grains  more 
silver  than  the  famous  "  dollar  of  the  fathers,"  proposed  to  be 
recoined  by  the  pending  bill,  and  more  than  four  times  as  many 
of  these  new  dollars  have  already  been  coined  as  ever  were 
coined  of  all  other  silver  dollars  in  the  United  States.  In  the 
exceptional  and  abnormal  condition  of  the  silver  market  now 
existing  throughout  the  world  we  have  felt  compelled  to  in 
crease  the  weight  of  the  dollar  with  which  we  carry  on  trade 
with  the  heathen  nations  of  Asia.  Shall  we  do  less  for  the 
American  laborer  at  home?  Nay,  shall  we  not  do  a  little 
better  and  a  little  more  for  those  of  our  own  blood  and  our 


REMONETIZATION  OF  SILVER.  173 

own  fireside  ?  If  you  remonetize  the  dollar  of  the  fathers  your 
mints  will  be  at  once  put  to  work  on  two  different  dollars,  — 
different  in  weight,  different  in  value,  different  in  prestige,  dif 
ferent  in  their  reputation  and  currency  throughout  the  com 
mercial  world.  It  will  -read  strangely  in  history  that  the 
weightier  and  more  valuable  of  these  dollars  is  made  for  an 
ignorant  class  of  heathen  laborers  in  China  and  India,  and  that 
the  lighter  and  less  valuable  is  made  for  the  intelligent  and 
educated  laboring-man  who  is  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 
Charity,  the  adage  says,  begins  at  home.  Charity,  the  inde 
pendent  American  laborer  scorns  to  ask,  but  he  has  the  right 
to  demand  that  justice  should  begin  at  home.  In  his  name 
and  in  the  name  of  common  sense  and  common  honesty,  I  ask 
that  the  American  Congress  will  not  force  upon  the  American 
laborer  an  inferior  dollar  which  the  naked  and  famishing  labor 
ers  of  India  and  China  refuse  to  accept. 

The  bill  which  I  now  offer  as  a  substitute  for  the  House  bill 
contains  three  very  simple  provisions:  — 

1.  That  the  dollar  shall  contain  four  hundred  and  twenty-five 
grains  of  standard  silver,  shall  have  unlimited  coinage,  and  be 
an  unlimited  le^al  tender. 

o 

2.  That  all  the  profits  of  coinage  shall  go  to  the  Government, 
and  not  to  the  operator  in  silver  bullion. 

3.  That  silver  dollars   or  silver  bullion,  assayed   and   mint- 
stamped,  may  be  deposited  with  the  Assistant  Treasurer  at  New 
York,  for  which  coin  certificates  may  be  issued,  the  same   in 
denomination    as    United  States  notes,  not  below  ten  dollars, 
and  that  these  shall  be  redeemable  on  demand  in  coin  or  bullion. 
We  shall  thus  secure  a  paper  circulation  based  on  an  actual 
deposit  of  precious  metal,  giving  us  notes  as  valuable  as  those 
of   the  Bank  of   England   and  doing   away  at   once  with  the 
dreaded    inconvenience    of    silver   on    account   of    bulk   and 
weight. 

I  do  not  fail,  Mr.  President,  to  recognize  that  the  committals 
and  avowals  of  senators  on  this  question  preclude  the  hope  of 
my  substitute  being  adopted.  I  do -not  indeed  fail  to  recognize 
that  on  this  question  I  am  not  in  line  with  either  extreme, — 
with  those  who  believe  in  the  single  gold  standard  or  with 
those  who  by  premature  and  unwise  action,  as  I  must  regard  it, 


174  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

would  force  us  to  the  single  silver  standard.  Either  will  be 
found,  in  my  judgment,  a  great  misfortune  to  our  country. 
We  need  both  gold  and  silver,  and  we  can  have  both  only  by 
making  each  the  equal  of  the  other.  It  would  not  be  difficult 
to  show  that,  in  the  nations  where  both  have  been  fully  recog 
nized  and  most  widely  diffused,  the  steadiest  and  most  continu 
ous  prosperity  has  been  enjoyed,  —  that  true  form  of  prosperity 
which  reaches  all  classes,  but  which  begins  with  the  day-laborer 
whose  toil  lays  the  foundation  of  the  whole  superstructure  of 
wealth.  The  exclusively  gold  nation  like  England  may  show 
the  most  massive  fortunes  in  the  ruling  classes,  but  it  shows 
also  the  most  helpless  and  hopeless  poverty  in  the  humbler 
walks  of  life.  The  gold  and  silver  nation  like  France  can 
exhibit  no  such  individual  fortunes  as  abound  in  a  gold  nation 
like  England,  but  it  lias  a  peasantry  whose  silver  savings  can 
pay  a  war  indemnity  that  would  have  beggared  the  gold 
bankers  of  London,  and  to  which  the  peasantry  of  England 
could  not  have  contributed  a  pound  sterling  in  gold  or  even 
a  shilling  in  silver. 

The  effect  of  paying  the  labor  of  this  country  in  silver  coin 
of  full  value,  as  compared  with  irredeemable  paper,  —  or  as 
compared,  even,  with  silver  of  inferior  value,  —  will  make  itself 
felt  in  a  single  generation  to  the  extent  of  tens  of  millions  — 
perhaps  hundreds  of  millions  —  in  the  aggregate  savings  which 
represent  consolidated  capital.  It  is  the  instinct  of  man  from 
the  savage  to  the  scholar  —  developed  in  childhood  and  remain 
ing  with  age  —  to  value  the  metals  which  in  all  lands  are 
counted  "  precious."  Excessive  paper  money  leads  to  extrava 
gance,  to  waste,  to  want,  as  we  painfully  witness  to-day. 
With  abounding  proof  of  its  demoralizing  and  destructive 
effect,  we  hear  it  proclaimed  in  the  Halls  of  Congress,  that 
"  the  people  demand  cheap  money."  I  deny  it.  I  declare  such 
a  phrase  to  be  a  total  misapprehension  —  a  total  misinterpreta 
tion  of  the  popular  wish.  The  people  do  not  demand  cheap 
money.  They  demand  an  abundance  of  good  money,  which  is 
an  entirely  different  thing.  They  do  not  want  a  single  gold 
standard  that  will  exclude  silver  and  benefit  those  already  rich. 
They  do  not  want  an  inferior  silver  standard  that  will  drive  out 
gold  and  not  help  those  already  poor.  They  want  both  metals, 


REMOXETIZATIOX  OF  SILVER.  175 

in  full  value,  in  equal  honor,  in  whatever  abundance  the  boun 
tiful  earth  will  yield  them  to  the  searching  eye  of  science  and 
to  the  hard  hand  of  labor. 

The  two  metals  have  existed  side  by  side  in  harmonious, 
honorable  companionship  as  money,  ever  since  intelligent  trade 
was  known  among  men.  It  is  well-nigh  forty  centuries  since 
"  Abraham  weighed  to  Ephroii  the  silver,  which  he  had  named 
in  the  audience  of  the  sons  of  Heth,  four  hundred  shekels  of 
silver,  current  money  with  the  merchant."  Since  that  time 
nations  have  risen  and  fallen,  races  have  disappeared,  dialects 
and  languages  have  been  forgotten,  arts  have  been  lost,  treas 
ures  have  perished,  continents  have  been  discovered,  islands 
have  been  sunk  in  the  sea,  and  through  all  these  ages  and 
through  all  these  changes,  silver  and  gold  have  reigned  supreme 
as  the  representatives  of  value  —  as  the  media  of  exchange. 
The  dethronement  of  each  has  been  attempted  in  turn,  and 
sometimes  the  dethronement  of  both ;  but  always  in  vain  !  And 
we  are  here  to-day,  deliberating  anew  over  the  problem  which 
comes  down  to  us  from  Abraham's  time  —  the  weight  of  the 
silver  that  shall  be  u  current  money  with  the  merchant." 


176  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


THE    HALIFAX    AWARD. 


[On  the  20th  of  February,  1878,  Mr.  Elaine  submitted  the  following  resolu 
tion  for  the  consideration  of  the  Senate :  — 

Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be  respectfully  requested  to 
communicate  to  the  Senate  at  the  earliest  practicable  day,  if  not  in  his  judgment 
incompatible  with  the  public  interest,  copies  of  all  correspondence  between  our 
Government  and  the  Government  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty  in  regard  to  the  selec 
tion  of  M.  Maurice  Delfosse,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary 
from  Belgium,  as  the  third  commissioner  under  the  twenty-third  article  of  the 
treaty  of  Washington  on  the  question  of  the  fisheries. 

Objection  was  made  and  the  resolution  went  over.  On  the  llth  of  March 
Mr.  Elaine  called  up  the  resolution,  and  made  the  following  speech:  —  ] 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  The  resolution  of  inquiry,  which  I  offered 
a  fortnight  ago,  was  met  with  objection  and  was  laid  over.  I 
call  it  up  now  to  explain  my  reasons  for  desiring  its  adoption. 
For  some  time  past  there  have  been  rumors  of  an  unpleasant 
character  touching  the  mode  in  which  M.  Delfosse,  the  Bel 
gian  minister  accredited  to  this  country,  was  urged  by  the 
British  Government  as  the  third  commissioner  under  the  treaty 
of  Washington  on  the  question  of  the  Fisheries.  These  rumors 
come  in  a  form  that  enforces  attention,  and  while  I  do  not 
pretend  to  vouch  for  their  entire  accurac}7",  I  think  they  are 
sufficiently  grave  to  call  for  authentication  or  denial. 

It  appears  by  these  reports  that  during  the  conference  of  the 
Joint  High  Commission  in  April,  1871,  Lord  Ripon,  speaking 
for  the  English  Government,  said  in  relation  to  the  several 
proposed  arbitrations  which  were  under  discussion,  that  it  would 
not  be  a  proper  thing  for  England  to  offer  Belgium  or  Portugal 
as  arbitrators ;  and  he  especially  spoke  of  Belgium  as  being 
incapacitated  for  the  function  by  reason  of  her  peculiar  rela 
tions  with  England.  This  declaration  was  promptly  assented 
to  by  the  American  commissioners.  With  the  understanding 


THE  HALIFAX  AWARD.  177 

thus  volunteered  by  Lord  Ripon,  the  Halifax  commission  of 
three  arbitrators  on  the  fisheries  was  agreed  to  —  our  Government 
to  name  one,  the  British  Government  to  name  one,  and  the 
two  Governments  conjointly  to  name  the  third.  It  was  stipu 
lated  that  if  the  two  Governments  could  not  agree  on  the  third 
commissioner  within  three  months,  the  Austrian  ambassador 
at  London  should  name  him.  As  soon  as  the  fishery  clause 
of  the  treaty  went  into  effect  in  July,  1873,  the  Secretary  of 
State,  Mr.  Fish,  formally  invited  the  British  minister,  Sir 
Edward  Thornton,  to  confer  with  him  in  regard  to  the  appoint 
ment  of  the  third  commissioner.  He  found  Sir  Edward  without 
instructions  from  his  Government,  and  after  delaying  for  some 
days  Mr.  Fish  took  the  initiative  and  submitted  a  number  of 
names  for  his  consideration.  Among  these,  selected  from  a 
large  field,  were  Mariscal,  minister  from  Mexico  ;  Offenberg, 
minister  from  Russia  ;  Borges,  from  Brazil ;  Polo,  from  Spain  ; 
the  Count  de  Noailles,  from  France;  Westenberg,  from  Hol 
land,  and  others.  Mr.  Fish  did  not  include  M.  Delfosse  among 
these,  as  he  thought  that  his  name  had  been  fairly  excluded  by 
the  understanding  of  the  Joint  High  Commission. 

Sir  Edward  Thornton  made  no  response  for  several  weeks  and 
then  answered  Mr.  Fish,  declining  to  accept  any  of  the  names 
submitted  by  him  and  proposing  in  turn  the  single  name  of  M. 
Delfosse.  It  was  understood,  I  believe,  that  Sir  Edward  was 
acting  under  the  direct  instructions  of  Lord  Granville,  British 
Secretary  of  Foreign  affairs.  Mr.  Fish  peremptorily  declined  to 
accept  M.  Delfosse  and  quoted  Lord  Ripon's  remark  in  regard 
to  Belgium,  and  again  urged  Sir  Edward  to  accept  one  of  the 
names  proposed  by  him  or  else  to  propose  some  names  himself. 
In  answer  to  this  Sir  Edward  stated  that  Lord  Dufferin,  the 
Governor-General  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  speaking  for  the 
Canadians,  objected  to  taking  as  the  third  commissioner  any  one 
accredited  to  our  Government.  Immediately  after  this  declara 
tion  Sir  Edward  appeared  at  the  State  Department  with  fresh 
instructions  from  Lord  Granville  to  insist  on  M.  Delfosse, 
though  at  that  very  moment  M.  Delfosse  was  accredited  to  our 
Government.  The  only  alternative  presented  by  Sir  Edward 
was  that  his  Government  would  accept  some  "Dutch  gentle 
man  "  that  might  be  chosen  at  the  Hague  by  the  American  and 


178  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

British  ministers.  This  mode  of  selection  was  at  once  rejected 
by  Mr.  Fish  as  not  being  within  the  terms  of  the  treaty.  The 
three  months  within  which  the  two  Governments  were  to  act 
conjointly  having  been  thus  exhausted,  apparently  by  the  design 
of  the  British  Government,  the  matter  was  by  the  treaty  re 
manded  to  the  Austrian  ambassador  at  London.  A  delay  of 
some  years  then  ensued  in  consequence  of  the  negotiations  for 
a  reciprocity  treaty  which,  if  secured,  would  have  precluded  the 
necessity  of  arbitrating  the  fishery  question.  The  correspond 
ence  was  not  renewed  until  1876. 

The  result  of  the  whole  was  that  in  February,  1877,  the 
Austrian  ambassador  at  London  nominated  M.  Delfosse  as  the 
third  commissioner.  It  is  now  reported  on  the  authority  of  an 
interview  recently  published  in  the  New -York  Herald  that  Mr. 
Fish  finally  assented  to  the  appointment  of  M.  Delfosse  by  the 
Austrian  ambassador.  This  may  or  may  not  be  true,  but  it  is  not 
material  to  the  issue  ;  for  the  matter  had  lapsed  absolutely  into 
the  hands  of  the  ambassador,  and  as  he  was  resident  in  London, 
in  easy  communication  with  the  British  ministry,  they  had 
means  of  influencing  the  decision  that  were  not  within  our 
power.  Mr.  Fish  may  well  have  thought  that  as  the  appoint 
ment  of  M.  Delfosse  was  inevitable  it  was  prudent  and  expedient 
to  submit  to  it  gracefully  and  in  such  a  way  as  not  to  incur 
the  personal  ill-will  of  the  third  commissioner.  I  can  well 
see  how  a  wise  secretary,  like  Mr.  Fish,  might  in  the  end 
have  been  thus  influenced  after  having  exhausted  every  effort, 
as  he  so  ably  and  fearlessly  did,  to  keep  M.  Delfosse  off  the 
commission. 

I  do  not  intend  in  any  remarks  I  am  making  to  cast  reflec 
tions  on  M.  Delfosse,  who  is  known  as  an  honorable  representa 
tive  of  his  Government.  I  only  mean  to  imply  and  to  assert 
that,  if  Lord  Ripon  is  to  be  credited,  M.  Delfosse  was  not  in  a 
position  to  be  an  impartial  arbitrator;  and  that  in  my  judgment 
Great  Britain  never  should  have  proposed  him.  Mr.  Fish  was 
therefore  justified  in  resisting  his  appointment  as  long  as  resist 
ance  promised  to  be  effectual.  Nor  do  I  mean  to  impute  to  Sir 
Edward  Thornton  any  proceeding  that  was  not  strictly  honor 
able.  The  highly  esteemed  representative  of  the  British  Gov 
ernment  at  this  Capital,  in  all  he  did  was  simply  following  the 


THE  HALIFAX  AWARD.  179 

instructions  of  Lord  Granville.  But  I  do  mean  to  say,  if  I  am 
correctly  informed,  that  the  correspondence  for  which  my  reso 
lution  calls  will  disclose  a  designed  and  persistent  effort  on  the 
part  of  the  British  Government  to  secure  an  advantage  in  the 
selection  of  the  third  commissioner  on  the  question  of  the  fish 
eries.  It  is  but  just  to  remark  that  the  Dominion  of  Canada 
had  no  more  right  to  interpose  in  the  matter  than  had  the  States 
of  Massachusetts  and  Maine ;  and  that  the  governors  of  those 
States  had  the  same  right  to  speak  for  their  people  in  regard  to 
selecting  a  third  commissioner  as  had  Lord  Dufferin  to  speak 
for  the  people  of  the  Dominion.  The  negotiation  was  between 
two  great  nations,  and  subordinate  States  and  provinces  had  no 
right  to  dictate,  or  even  to  suggest,  unless  called  upon  by  the 
two  principals. 

It  may  be  somewhat  premature  to  speak  of  the  award  made 
by  the  Halifax  commission,  but  as  it  is  already  discussed  in  the 
press  of  both  countries,  a  brief  reference  to  it  may  not  be  out 
of  place.  The  extraordinary  nature  of  that  award  can  only  be 
appreciated  when  the  surrounding  facts  are  understood.  In  the 
original  discussion  of  the  fishery  question  by  the  Joint  High 
Commission  in  1871,  the  American  commissioners  could  be  in 
duced  to  offer  only  $1,000,000  for  all  the  fishing  privileges  sub 
sequently  embodied  in  the  treaty.  The  British  commissioners 
declined  this  offer,  and  would  enter  into  no  negotiation  that  did 
not  include  the  admission  of  the  products  of  the  Canadian  fish 
eries  into  the  American  market  free  of  duty.  This  conces 
sion,  highly  advantageous  to  Canada  and  highly  injurious  to 
our  fisheries,  was  finally  inserted  in  the  treaty.  It  was  further 
agreed  to  decide  by  arbitration  what  amount  of  additional 
compensation  should  be  paid  by  us  for  the  right  to  use  the 
inshore  fisheries  of  Nova  Scotia  for  twelve  years.  The  Halifax 
commission  took  the  subject  into  consideration,  and  two  com 
missioners  (both  in  effect  selected  by  Great  Britain)  determined 
that  WQ  should  pay  her  five  and  a  half  millions  of  dollars  in 
gold  coin,  or  at  the  rate  of  nearly  half  a  million  dollars  per 
annum.  The  duties  on  the  products  of  Canadian  fisheries  im 
ported  into  this  country  (all  remitted  by  the  treaty)  would  be 
almost  another  half  million  dollars  per  annum ;  so  that  under 
this  award  we  should  be  actually  paying  nearly  a  million  of 


180  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS.- 

dollars  per  annum  in  gold  coin  for  the  privilege  of  inshore  fish 
ing  on  the  coast  of  Nova  Scotia,  where  the  total  catch  by 
American  fishermen,  beyond  what  we  had  the  right  to  take 
without  this  treaty,  would  not  amount  to  much  over  §300,000 
per  annum.  In  other  words,  we  are  paying  to  Great  Britain  a 
million  of  dollars  per  annum  for  the  privilege  of  catching  less 
than  four  hundred  thousand  dollars'  worth  of  fish.  Such  is  a 
mere  outline  of  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  the  injustice  of  the 
award  is  so  palpable  that  it  is  difficult  to  treat  it  with  the  respect 
due  to  all  subjects  involving  international  relations. 

The  question  as  to  the  binding  force  of  the  award  is  naturally 
and  necessarily  one  of  the  gravest  interest,  not  only  on  account 
of  the  large  amount  involved  but  on  account  of  the  very 
peculiar  circumstances  under  which  the  decision  against  us  was 
reached.  The  award  was  signed  only  by  Sir  Alexander  Gait, 
the  British  commissioner,  and  by  M.  Delfosse.  The  American 
commissioner,  Mr.  Kellogg,  refused  to  sign  it,  and  affirmed  his 
dissent  in  writing ;  declaring  it  to  be  his  deliberate  opinion  that 
"  the  advantages  accruing  to  Great  Britain  under  the  treaty 
were  greater  than  those  conferred  on  the  United  States ; "  and 
he  further  declared  that  he  deemed  it  his  duty  to  state  that  "  it 
is  questionable  whether  it  is  competent  for  the  board  to  make 
an  award  under  the  treaty  except  with  the  unanimous  consent 
of  all  the  arbitrators."  Mr.  Dwight  Foster,  the  agent  of  our 
Government,  stated  that  he  "  had  no  instructions  as  to  what  he 
should  do  under  the  circumstances,  but  he  could  not  keep  silent, 
and  give  ground  for  the  inference  that  our  Government  would 
consider  the  award  a  valid  one."  I  mention  these  facts  to  show 
that  objections  to  the  validity  of  the  award  were  not  the  result 
of  afterthought,  but  were  incorporated  as  part  of  the  proceed 
ings  before  the  arbitrators. 

O 

The  ground  on  which  Mr.  Kellogg  questioned  the  competency 
of  two  of  the  arbitrators  to  make  an  award  is  that  found  in  all 
the  legal  authorities  on  arbitration.  The  articles  in  the  treaty 
of  Washington  creating  the  Halifax  Board  of  Arbitration  gave 
no  authority  to  a  majority  of  the  Board  to  make  an  award,  nor 
was  the  third  commissioner  empowered  to  act  as  umpire.  Both 
in  the  tribunal  at  Geneva  and  in  the  Claims  Commission  at 
Washington,  it  was  expressly  stipulated  that  a  majority  of  the 


THE  HALIFAX  AWARD.  181 

arbitrators  should  decide.  In  the  Halifax  commission  no  such 
stipulation  was  made,  and  the  inference  therefore  is  strong,  if 
not  irresistible,  that  their  award  should  be  made  according  to 
the  general  law  of  arbitration.  What  that  law  is,  upon  English 
authority,  may  be  briefly  stated. 

Redman  on  "  Arbitration  and  Awards,"  considered  one  of  the 
highest  authorities  in  England,  says  :  — 

"  On  a  reference  to  several  arbitrators  with  no  provision  that  less  than  all 
shall  make  an  award,  each  must  act ;  and  all  must  act  together ;  and  every 
stage  of  the  proceedings  must  be  in  the  presence  of  all ;  and  the  award  must 
be  signed  by  all  at  the  same  time." 

Francis  Russell,  another  English  authority  of  eminence, 
says :  — 

"  On  a  reference  to  several  arbitrators  together,  when  there  is  no  clause 
providing  for  an  award  made  by  less  than  all  being  valid,  each  of  them  must 
act  personally  in  performance  of  the  duties  of  his  office  as  if  he  were  sole 
arbitrator ;  for  as  the  office  is  joint,  if  one  refuse  or  omit  to  act,  the  others 
can  make  no  valid  award." 

Stewart  Kyd,  an  earlier  but  not  less  authoritative  writer, 
enforces  the  same  doctrine.  After  alluding  to  the  Roman  law 
and  to  its  permission  for  the  majority  of  arbitrators  to  decide, 
Mr.  Kyd  makes  the  following  statement :  — 

"  In  this  respect  the  law  of  England  is  somewhat  different ;  for  unless  it 
be  expressly  provided  in  the  submission  that  a  less  number  than  all  the 
arbitrators  named  may  make  the  award,  the  concurrence  of  all  is  necessary." 

If  these  eminent  English  authors  are  to  be  accepted,  it  is 
quite  apparent  that  the  Halifax  award  has  no  binding  effect  in 
law.  .As  to  the  equity  of  the  case,  I  have  already  given  the 
undeniable  facts  that  govern  it. 

I  am  not  now  discussing,  much  less  presuming  to  define,  the 
action  which  our  Government  should  ultimately  take  in  regard 
to  the  award.  If  we  should  follow  what  I  believe  would  be  the 
inevitable  course  of  Great  Britain  under  similar  circumstances 
we  should  utterly  refuse  to  pay  a  single  penny,  and  ground  our 
refusal  both  on  the  law  and  the  equity  of  the  case.  The  treaty 
as  it  stands  is  a  mockery  of  justice,  and  will  work  the  certain 
destruction  of  a  great  American  interest.  It  is  in  fact  noth 
ing  else  than  asking  us  to  pay  a  million  dollars  per  annum  to 


182  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

Great  Britain  for  destroying  the  entire  fishing  interest  of 
America  and  still  further  crippling  and  weakening  us  as  a  com 
mercial  power.  For  the  utter  abrogation  of  the  treaty  I  should 
be  willing  to  pay  the  annual  indemnity  for  the  years  we  have 
used  the  inshore  fisheries,  during  which  years  the  Canadians 
have  had  free  access  to  the  markets  of  forty-five  millions  of 
people ;  or  I  should  be  willing  to  pay  double  the  award  to  be 
rid  of  the  treaty.  We  might  by  this  course  anticipate  by  a 
period  of  seven  years  a  return  to  that  policy  which  alone  can 
insure  the  prosperity  or  even  save  the  life  of  a  great  and  impor 
tant  trade,  indissolubly  associated  with  our  commercial  develop 
ment  and  absolutely  essential  to  our  success  and  prestige  as 
a  naval  power.  Paying  thus  even  an  unfair  price  for  the 
inshore  fisheries  as  long  as  we  shall  have  used  them,  we  remove 
all  possible  ground  for  imputation,  even  by  the  ignorant  and 
the  hostile,  upon  the  honor  of  our  Government  and  the  good 
faith  and  fair  dealing  of  our  people. 

When  we  were  poor  and  weak  as  a  nation,  we  so  highly 
esteemed  the  value  of  the  fisheries  that  we  encouraged  their 
development  by  rewards  and  bounties.  These  were  abandoned 
some  years  ago,  but  still  we  preserved  to  our  fishermen  a  pref 
erence  in  our  own  markets.  Even  that  is  given  away  by  the 
provisions  of  this  treaty.  By  the  Halifax  award,  if  we  accept 
it,  and  continue  the  treaty,  we  pay  to  Great  Britain  one  mil 
lion  dollars  per  annum  for  destroying  a  school  of  commerce, 
which,  properly  nurtured,  will  be  her  great  rival  in  the  future. 
Against  such  a  policy  I  enter  my  protest,  if  I  stand  alone.  I 
believe  that  the  products  of  American  industry,  on  land  and 
sea,  should  have  the  first  and  best  chance  in  the  American 
markets.  I  believe  the  American  fisherman  should  be  preferred 
by  us  to  the  Canadian  fisherman.  If  we  cannot  pay  him  a 
bounty  to  encourage  and  sustain  him,  let  us  at  least  not  pay 
a  bounty  to  Great  Britain  to  destroy  him. 

Mr.  HAMLIN.  Mr.  President,  I  interpose  no  objection  to  the 
passage  of  this  resolution,  while  on  the  other  hand  I  think  it 
wise  and  well  that  we  shall  have  all  the  facts  in  relation  to  this 
matter  before  us.  I  agree  entirely  with  my  colleague,  with  the 
senator  from  Massachusetts,  and  with  the  gentleman  whose 
letter  has  been  read  at  the  table  by  the  Clerk,  that  we  get  no 


THE  HALIFAX  AWARD.  183 

compensation  for  that  award  in  any  equivalent  granted  by  the 
inshore  fisheries  along  the  coast  of  Nova  Scotia.  I  have  no 
hesitation  in  declaring  that  an  equivalent  in  the  receipt  of  the 
fish  caught  in  the  provinces  in  our  market  is  far  beyond  any 
thing  which  we  receive  in  return  under  that  treaty.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  about  it.  And  yet  we  are  living  to-day  under  a 
treaty  negotiated  here  in  this  city ;  and  while  it  is  the  law  of 
the  land  and  a  contract  existing  between  the  two  high  contract 
ing  parties,  the  honor  of  this  Government  demands  that  we 
maintain  all  the  obligations  that  are  imposed  upon  us.  If  it  be 
true  that  we  were  overreached  or  that  in  the  selection  of  the 
arbitrator  an  improper  person  was  taken  we  must  remember 
that  he  was  finally  taken  by  the  assent  of  this  Government; 
and  when  we  come  to  the  consideration  of  the  subject  it  will 
be  one  which  involves  the  honor  of  our  Government  and  one 
which  I  need  not  undertake  to  say  will  demand  of  us  that  we 
meet  promptly  and  fully  what  shall  be  required. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  I  quite  agree  with  my  colleague  upon  that, 
and  I  think  our  merit  will  be  all  the  greater  if  we  pay  an  award 
of  five  and  a  half  millions  when  we  have  proved  to  the  world 
that  we  did  not  get  any  thing  for  it.  Paying  one's  debt  for 
full  value  received  is  considered  a  proper  and  upright  course 
for  upright  men;  but  paying  a  large  sum  for  which  we  get 
nothing  in  return  ought  to  be  accounted  to  us  for  a  good 
deal  more  of  righteousness. 

[The  correspondence  between  the  two  Governments  was  sent  to  the  Senate 
on  the  2Gth  of  March,  and  on. moving  that  it  be  printed  Mr.  Blaine  spoke  as 
follows:  —  ] 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  I  move  that  the  correspondence  between 
the  American  and  British  Governments  in  regard  to  the  appoint 
ment  of  M.  Delfosse  on  the  Halifax  commission  be  taken  from 
the  table  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs.  I 
beg  at  the  same  time  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  the 
fact  that  the  correspondence  more  than  justifies  all  I  said  in 
regard  to  the  very  extraordinary  efforts  of  Lord  Granville  to 
force  M.  Delfosse  upon  our  Government.  I  would  particularly 
direct  attention  to  the  letter  of  Sir  Edward  Thornton,  of  Aug. 
19, 1873,  and  to  Mr.  Fish's  reply  on  the  21st  of  the  same  month. 


184  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

When  the  resolution  calling  for  this  correspondence  was  be 
fore  the  Senate,  I  agreed  with  my  honorable  colleague,  the 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  that  the  award 
would  be  paid,  not  because  it  was  just  or  was  founded  upon 
any  fact  or  evidence  submitted  to  the  Halifax  commission,  but 
simply  because  it  was  an  award  which  for  honor's  sake  we 
might  pay  though  we  got  nothing  for  the  large  sum  required. 
If  the  payment  of  five  and  a  half  millions  were  the  end  of 
the  matter  I  should  be  willing  to  vote  it  in  silence  and  bury  the 
whole  matter  out  of  sight.  But  the  truth  is  that  this  award 
is  only  the  beginning  of  trouble.  The  period  for  which  it  pays 
will  be  ended  in  five  years  and  then  our  privilege  for  inshore 
fishing  must  be  negotiated  afresh.  It  was  well  known  at  Hali 
fax  during  the  session  of  the  Commission  that  the  Canadian 
authorities  were  striving  not  simply  for  the  large  sum  in  hand 
but  for  the  fixing  of  a  rate  by  which  to  assess  the  price  of 
the  inshore  fisheries  in  future.  It  is  our  duty  to  show  that 
the  rate  fixed  by  the  Halifax  Commission  has  no  foundation 
whatever  in  truth  or  in  fact  and  that  no  evidence  was  before 
the  commission  to  justify  the  award.  I  hold  in  my  hand  some 
statistics  of  very  great  interest  bearing  on  the  question,  from 
which  it  appears  that  the  total  value  of  the  catch  in  the  inshore 
fisheries  by  American  fishermen  during  the  four  years  the 
treaty  has  been  in  operation  was  only  $435,170,  on  which  the 
profit  was  probably  $100,000.  This  covers  the  entire  catch  for 
which  we  obtained  the  right  under  the  treaty.  During  the 
same  four  years  the  duties  on  Canadian  fish  and  oil  remitted 
by  our  Government  amounted  to  a  million  and  a  half  of  dollars 
in  gold,  and  now  under  this  treaty  we  are  compelled  to  pay 
half  a  million  per  annum  in  addition  or  two  millions  of  dollars 
in  gold  coin  for  the  four  years.  In  other  words,  by  remission 
of  duties  and  the  payment  of  cash  from  the  Treasury  our  Gov 
ernment  is  called  upon  to  pay  three  and  a  half  millions  of 
dollars  in  gold  coin  for  the  privilege  of  permitting  our  fisher 
men  to  make  a  profit  of  $100,000  on  the  inshore  fisheries  of 
Nova  Scotia. 

Considerable  comment  has  been  made  in  the  country  on  the 
point  suggested  by  me  that  the  Washington  treaty  required 
the  unanimous  verdict  of  the  Halifax  commissioners  before  a 


THE   HALIFAX  AWARD.  185 

legally  valid  award  could  be  made.  I  quoted  some  eminent 
English  authorities  in  support  of  this  position.  Since  then  a 
friend  has  shown  me  a  copy  of  the  London  Times  of  July  6, 
1877,  containing  an  elaborate  editorial  article  in  regard  to  the 
fishery  commission  then  about  to  assemble  in  Halifax.  In 
discussing  the  powers  of  the  commission  the  Times  said :  — 

"  On  every  point  that  comes  before  the  fishery  commission  for  decision 
the  unanimous  consent  of  all  its  members  is,  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty, 
necessary  before  an  authoritative  verdict  can  be  given." 

The  Times  then  points  out  the  difference  between  the  Geneva 
tribunal  and  the  Halifax  commission,  showing  that  a  majority 
could  decide  at  Geneva  but  affirming  that  the  United  States 
would  have  a  perfect  right  to  demand  unanimity  in  the  verdict 
at  Halifax. 

It  is  also  well  known  that  the  Halifax  commission  was  dis 
cussed  by  the  Canadian  ministry  in  1875,  after  the  negotiations 
for  a  Reciprocity  treaty  had  failed.  On  that  occasion  Mr. 
Blake,  the  Minister  of  justice,  remarked  that  the  "amount  of 
compensation  we  shall  receive  must  be  an  amount  unanimously 
agreed  upon  by  the  commissioners."  I  mention  these  facts  to 
show  that  I  spoke  with  full  authority  when  I  suggested  that 
the  verdict  rendered  at  Halifax  was  not  legally  binding  under 
the  terms  of  the  treaty.  Its  payment  must  be  justified  on 
other  grounds,  and  I  have  already  intimated  more  than  once 
that  considerations  entirely  outside  of  the  legality  or  the  jus 
tice  of  the  award  might  constrain  us  to  respect  it.  But  it 
should  never  be  paid  without  such  protest  as  will  forever  pre 
vent  its  being  quoted  as  a  precedent  or  accepted  as  a  standard 
to  measure  the  value  of  the  inshore  fisheries  in  future  negoti 
ations. 


186  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


TRADE    WITH    SOUTH    AMERICA. 


[On  the  5th  of  June,  1878,  Mr.  Blaine  addressed  the  Senate  on  the  question 
of  granting  the  aid  of  the  Government  in  establishing  a  line  of  American  mail- 
steamers  to  Brazil.] 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  This  discussion  is  taking  a  much  wider 
range  than  the  simple  granting  of  a  subsidy  to  Mr.  John  Roach, 
as  the  senator  from  Michigan  [Mr.  Christiancy]  seems  to  sup 
pose.  The  last  phase  of  the  question  propounded  by  the  senator 
from  Kentucky  in  an  amendment,  which  is  now  being  printed  I 
believe,  declares  that  hereafter  ships  of  foreign  construction 
shall  be  imported  free  into  the  United  States  and  be  entitled  to 
American  registry.  From  a  variety  of  indications  which  I  have 
observed  in  Congress,  at  both  ends  of  the  Capitol,  for  the  last 
three  or  four  years,  it  is  soon,  I  think,  to  become  a  practical 
question,  to  be  submitted  to  the  test  of  legislative  judgment 
whether  on  the  whole  we  shall  maintain  our  navigation  laws, 
or  whether,  after  having  stood  by  them  for  eighty  years,  we 
shall  conclude  now  to  surrender  them  and  become  tributary  to 
Great  Britain.  In  plain  truth  that  is  what  the  amendment 
of  the  senator  from  Kentucky  means.  It  means  that  with  all 
our  wealth,  with  all  our  advancement  in  skill  and  capital  and 
prestige  and  power,  here  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  nineteenth 
century  we  shall  confess  ourselves  incompetent  to  do  what  the 
founders  of  the  Government  considered  themselves  able  to 
accomplish  in  the  days  of  our  National  infancy. 

It  is  an  instructive  lesson  that  the  first  Congress  which 
assembled  under  the  Federal  Constitution,  when  the  popu 
lation  of  this  country  was  short  of  four  millions,  when  our 
coast  line  began  at  the  eastern  end  of  the  District  of  Maine 
and  was  limited  by  the  southern  end  of  Georgia,  when  we  did 
not  touch  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  and  did  not  even  dream  of  the 


TRADE  WITH  SOUTH  AMERICA.  187 

Pacific  Ocean,  when  we  could  not  manufacture  the  tools  neces 
sary  to  build  a  ship,  when  all  things  in  the  shape  of  mechanical 
contrivance  and  adaptation  were  in  their  veriest  infancy  in  this 
country,  that  the  wise  founders  of  our  Government  decreed  in 
the  navigation  laws,  which  have  stood  from  that  day  to  this, 
that  we  would  lay  the  foundations  of  a  great  naval  and  com 
mercial  power.  The  men  of  that  day  knew  that  we  never 
could  have  a  naval  or  commercial  power  unless  we  could  secure 
the  skill  and  the  art  of  the  ship-builder  at  home.  Our  fathers 
ordained  to  this  end  two  great  things :  in  the  first  place,  that 
no  ship  but  one  built  and  owned  by  Americans  should  ever 
engage  in  the  coastwise  trade  of  the  United  States ;  that  this 
privilege  should  be  for  our  own  citizens  absolutely  and  exclu 
sively  and  for  all  time  ;  and,  in  the  second  place,  that  as  re 
spected  the  foreign  trade,  no  ship  should  float  the  American 
flag  or  have  an  American  register  that  was  not  built  and  owned 
in  the  United  States. 

Gentlemen  think  this  policy  was  a  failure.  The  senator  from 
Kentucky  [Mr.  Beck]  has  talked  heretofore,  and  his  amend 
ment  now  speaks  more  plainly  than  his  words,  to  the  effect  that 
this  policy  has  been  a  failure.  Let  us  see  for  a  moment  what 
ground  there  is  for  his  conclusion.  Down  to  the  time  of  the 
rebellion,  measuring  seventy  years  from  the  foundation  of  the 
Government,  we  had  been  steadily  gaining  in  the  commercial 
contest  with  Great  Britain,  until  in  the  year  1857  we  stood 
abreast  of  her  in  ocean  tonnage.  More  than  that.  In  the 
year  1857  our  foreign  commerce  amounted  to  a  little  over 
$700,000,000,  counting  both  ways,  imports  and  exports,  and 
American  vessels  carried  $500,000,000  of  it,  and  vessels  of 
all  other  nations  carried  but  a  shade  over  1200,000,000  of  it. 
Twenty  years  afterward,  taking  the  statistics  of  1877,  what 
is  the  lamentable  picture  that  is  shown  us?  Our  foreign  com 
merce  has  increased  to  between  eleven  and  twelve  hundred 
millions  annually,  and  the  American  vessels  carry  less  than 
1300,000,000  of  it,  while  vessels  of  foreign  nationalities  carry 
over  $800,000,000  of  it. 

I  maintain,  sir,  that  if  our  Government  had  not  met  with  the 
incalculable  obstruction  that  was  thrown  against  us  by  the  war, 
and  had  been  willing  to  uphold  her  shipping  as  stiffly  as  Great 


188  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

Britain  has  upheld  hers  on  all  the  lines  of  commerce,  we  should 
have  outrun  her.  We  had  outrun  her  in  sailing-vessels.  We 
were  ahead  of  her  or  at  least  equal  to  her  in  1857.  If  I  remem 
ber  the  figures  aright,  the  tonnage  stood  about  5,700,000  tons  for 
each  country,  and  I  grieve  to  say  that  it  is  over  eight  millions  for 
Great  Britain  and  only  three  millions  for  America  to-day.  We 
may  stand  here  and  talk  about  the  wrongfulness  of  subsidies  and 
the  impolicy  of  granting  them  until  doomsday ;  and  Great  Britain 
will  applaud  every  speech  of  that  kind  made  in  the  American 
Congress,  and  will  quietly  subsidize  her  steamers  and  take  pos 
session  of  the  carrying-trade  of  the  world.  Great  Britain  to 
day  makes  annually  out  of  the  commerce  of  the  United  States 
a  larger  sum  than  the  interest  on  our  public  debt..  She  receives 
more  in  the  way  of  net  profits  on  the  carrying-trade  which 
America  gives  her,  than  the  interest  on  the  vast  national  debt 
with  which  we  are  burdened  to-day.  I  submit  this  statement 
as  a  statistical  fact  capable  of  being  illustrated  and  proved. 

Let  me  now  recount  a  few  facts  that  in  this  connection  are 
valuable ;  namely,  that  in  the  last  six  years,  including  1877, 
Brazil  exported  five  hundred  and  forty  million  dollars'  worth 
of  merchandise.  How  much  did  we  take  of  it?  We  took  two 
hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  it.  We  took  almost  half.  Brazil 
imported  nearly  the  same  amount  that  she  exported  —  about 
ninety  million  a  year  out  and  in.  How  much  did  we  send  to 
Brazil  in  those  six  years?  In  the  entire  six  years  we  sent 
forty-two  million  dollars'  worth.  They  do  not  really  know  in 
Brazil  what  we  have  to  sell  and  what  we  are  able  to  manufac 
ture  and  offer  them. 

The  senator  from  New  York  labored  to  show  the  other  day 
that  we  had  failed  under  what  was  called  the  Garrison  subsidy. 
The  Garrison  Company  ran  a  line  of  steamers  to  Rio,  which  in 
the  first  place  was  not  a  first-class  one,  not  a  line  that  was 
in  any  degree  a  competing  line  with  the  British  and  French. 
Nobody  wanted  to  embark  on  them  when  they  were  lying  side 
by  side  with  the  British  steamers  in  the  port  of  Rio  Janeiro. 
This  is  a  fact  which  the  Senate  ought  not  to  forget :  that  the 
line  was  started  at  the  close  of  the  war,  when  the  prices  of  all 
our  manufactured  articles  were  very  high,  and  we  could  not 
export  fabrics  of  any  kind. 


TRADE   WITH  SOUTH  AMERICA.  189 

Mr.  EATON.  If  my  friend  will  permit  me,  I  would  remind 
him  that  half  the  butter  and  cheese  Brazil  imports  (every  pound 
of  which  we  can  furnish  from  Ohio  alone),  nearly  all  the  boots 
and  shoes,  which  can  be  furnished  by  Massachusetts,  and 
nearly  all  the  agricultural  implements  went  from  Great  Britain. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  I  thank  my  friend  from  Connecticut  for  call 
ing  my  attention  to  the  fact.  I  was  coming  to  some  details  of 
that  kind.  I  was  pointing  out,  though,  that  the  ten  years 
of  the  Garrison  subsidy  were  years  of  remarkably  high  prices 
in  the  United  States,  so  that  we  were  in  no  condition  to  be  an 
exporting  nation.  The  fall  in  prices  in  this  country  within 
the  last  five  years,  however,  has  been  most  extraordinary,  quite 
as  extraordinary  as  the  previous  rise,  and  on  a  very  large  num 
ber  of  articles  we  are  able  not  only  to  compete  fairly,  but  to 
undersell  other  nations.  But  the  pressing  question  is,  how  can 
you  bring  seller  and  buyer  together?  To  apply  the  homely 
phrase,  the  first*  thing  you  must  do  to  induce  a  man  to  trade 
with  }rou  is,  get  him  in  your  store.  This  applies  to  a  nation  as 
well  as  to  a  country  merchant.  You  must  do  that  before  you 
can  sell  him  any  thing.  He  is  not  going  to  buy  when  he  is  on 
the  other  side  of  a  ten-acre  lot  or  in  the  next  township. 

The  merchants  on  the  River  La  Plata  and  in  Rio  Janeiro 
and  all  over  the  kingdom  of  Brazil  desire  a  speedy  and  comfort 
able  way  of  reaching  the  United  States.  To-day  all  the  desir 
able  lines  of  travel  that  run  from  the  city  of  Rio  Janeiro  run 
to  Europe,  and  the  steamers  that  run  there  are  just  as  good 
as  the  steamers  that  run  from  New  York  to  Europe ;  and,  of 
course,  the  merchants  and  travelers  will  go  in  that  direction. 
This  little  bit  of  a  Merchants'  line  between  New  York  and 
Rio  Janeiro  runs  vessels  in  which  nobody  would  wish  to  go  to 
sea.  It  is  not  a  comfortable  vessel,  aside  from  any  peril  that 
may  be  involved  in  going  to  sea  in  a  nine-hundred-toii  ship. 
It  is  a  very  different  thing  to  go  to  sea  in  a  three  or  four  thou 
sand  ton  ship.  It  is  the  difference  between  riding  on  land  in  a 
freight-car  and  in  a  Pullman  palace-car.  When  they  present 
that  as  the  competing  line,  it  is  simply  to  shut  us  out  of  Brazil 
and  keep  Brazilians  from  coming  to  us.  The  very  first  thing 
to  connect  us  in  any  commercial  relations  whatever  with  Brazil 
Js  to  enable  Brazilians  to  come  here,  and  to  come  here  with 


190  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

comfort,  to  make  a  journey  both  of  pleasure  and  of  business. 
They  go  by  the  thousands  and  the  tens  of  thousands  to  Europe, 
and  they  will  continue  to  go  there  just  as  long  as  there  is  no 
opportunity  to  come  this  way  with  equal  speed  and  comfort. 

Mr.  President,  there  is  not  a  more  enlightened  sovereign  in 
the  world  than  the  eminent  man  who  governs  Brazil  to-day.  He 
is  an  imperial  democrat  or  a  democratic  emperor,  whichever 
you  choose  to  call  him.  He  is  thoroughly  devoted  to  the  inter 
ests  of  his  people.  He  illustrated  in  his  last  journey  over  the 
world  the  fabled  tour  of  Peter  the  Great  in  the  seventeenth 
century,  going  into  the  ship-yards  and  dock-yards  and  factories 
to  find  out  how  every  thing  was  done.  He  came  here  ;  he  went 
over  this  country,  I  venture  to  say,  in  a  much  more  thorough 
manner  than  any  gentleman  on  this  floor  has  ever  done.  I 
venture  to  say  that  Dom  Pedro  can  tell  more  —  I  do  not  know 
about  the  individual  localities  which  we  all  know  about  —  but 
taking  the  country  as  a  whole,  I  venture  to  say  that  the  impe 
rial  head  of  that  government  can  tell  more  about- the  United 
States  from  personal  observation  than  any  senator  on  this  floor. 
He  went  back  profoundly  impressed  with  the  idea  that  Brazil 
had  been  made  altogether  too  much  a  tail  to  the  kite  of  the 
European  monopolists,  and  that  Brazilians  had  never  had  an  op 
portunity  to  enter  into  the  markets  of  the  United  States.  He 
found  that  he  was  selling  nearly  half  of  all  that  he  had  to  sell 
from  his  empire  to  this  country,  and  almost  literally  buying 
nothing  from  us ;  and  he  said  the  very  first  thought  that  struck 
him  was,  "There  is  no  way  of  coming  to  your  country;  we 
cannot  get  to  you.  We  may  come  up  to  Carthagena  and  ship 
there,  and  come  over  to  Havana  and  ship  there,  and  thus  get 
to  New  York."  That  will  take  five  or  six  weeks.  There  is 
occasionally  a  stray  steamer  that  runs,  but  it  cannot  be  de 
pended  on.  The  first  thing  therefore  to  be  done  in  order  to 
establish  trade  between  this  country  and  Brazil,  as  that  wise 
Emperor  said,  is  to  establish  a  good  line  of  communication 
between  the  two. 

The  Emperor  while  he  was  in  the  United  States  met  John 
Roach.  He  conversed  on  this  subject  with  Mr.  Roach  just  as 
he  stood  in  his  own  ship-yard  in  the  active  discharge  of  his 
daily  business.  He  measured  his  intelligence  and  his  energy. 


TRADE  WITH  SOUTH  AMERICA.  191 

> 

After  the  Emperor  had  returned  to  his  dominions  Mr.  Roach 
sent  an  agent  to  Rio  Janeiro.  He  found  the  Emperor  still 
zealous  and  eager  for  the  line  of  steamers.  His  Majesty's  Gov 
ernment  contracted  with  Mr.  Roach  to  put  on  a  line  of  first- 
class  steamers  between  Rio  and  New  York  that  people  might 
go  back  and  forth,  that  mail-matter  might  go  back  and  forth 
freely,  that  there  should  be  luxurious  accommodations  if  they 
chose  to  pay  for  them,  and  ample  accommodations  for  all  those 
who  chose  to  avail  themselves  of  them  ;  and  the  Emperor  of 
Brazil  did  that  in  the  undoubted  belief  that  America  would 
respond  with  at  least  equal  liberality.  He  made  the  tender. 
He  said,  "  We  need  to  come  closer  together  ;  we  cannot  get  to 
each  other  now ;  let  us  build  up  a  line  of  first-class  steamships, 
and  I  will  pay  half."  That  is  the  plain  truth  of  it :  "I  will 
pay  half  if  you  will  pay  the  other  half.  Let  us  try  it  and  see 
what  will  come  of  it."  Forthwith,  as  one  of  the  results  of  it, 
a  meeting  was  held  in  the  city  of  New  York,  in  the  expectation 
that  this  line  would  be  established,  and  merchants  and  manu 
facturers  have  taken  the  preliminary  steps  to  establish  a  maga 
zine  in  Rio  in  which  every  variety  of  American  fabric  shall 
be  exhibited  —  our  textiles,  our  metals,  our  products  of  all 
kinds  —  that  a  great  American  bazaar  shall  be  opened  there  in 
which  every  thing  we  have  to  sell  shall  be  exhibited  with  the 
price  attached,  and  the  advantages  of  shipments  shall  be  made 
known  to  all  buyers. 

This  may  be  an  unwise  waste  of  money.  I  do  not  myself 
think  so.  It  may  be  a  very  wise  thing  for  us  to  fold  our  hands 
and  say  to  Great  Britain,  "Take  the  seas;  they  are  yours. 
To  be  sure  we  have  seventeen  thousand  miles  of  coast  running 
from  Behring's  Straits  down  to  the  Gulf  of  California ;  we  take 
in  all  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  all  the  North  Atlantic.  We  have 
timber,  lumber,  hemp,  and  iron,  and  every  possible  material  that 
can  make  ships,  but  we  are  not  equal  to  it.  You  must  come 
forward  and  do  our  carrying-trade."  That  is  what  England  is 
contending  for  to-day.  She  does  not  intend  that  any  European 
nation  shall  ever  become  a  great  naval  and  commercial  power. 

There  is  no  rival  left  to  her  in  the  commercial  world,  and  if 
she  can  buy  us  out,  or  bully  us  out  of  a  tariff  that  shall  protect 
American  industries,  and  bluff  us  out  of  enterprises  that  shall 


192  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

stimulate  lines  of  American  steamships,  she  will  have  done  all 
she  desires  to  do  for  her  factories  and  for  her  commerce. 

The  honorable  senator  from  Maryland  said  that  every  one  of 
these  attempts  to  build  up  commerce  by  means  of  subsidies  had 
been  utter  and  ignominious  failures,  and  he  cited  especially 
the  Pacific  mail,  out  of  which  there  grew  much  scandal.  The 
senator  from  California  [Mr.  Sargent],  in  the  very  debate  of 
last  year,  in  which  my  honorable  friend  from  Michigan  was 
willing  to  give  half  a  million  for  old  and  inferior  ships,  while 
he  is  not  willing  now  to  give  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand 
dollars  for  a  line  of  new  and  superior  steamships,  said,  and  I 
quote  this  for  the  benefit  of  the  senator  from  Maryland,  - 

"  We  have  now  to  a  very  great  extent,  by  means  of  this  policy  pursued  by 
the  Government,  control  of  the  commerce  of  the  Pacific  Ocean.  The  Atlantic 
is  an  English  or  European  lake,  and  nothing  more.  We  scarcely  venture 
out  upon  it  with  our  own  American  lines.  The  case,  however,  is  reversed  in 
regard  to  the  Pacific,  and  there  the  enterprise  of  our  people,  aided  in  this 
manner  by  our  Government,  has  been  able  to  seize  upon  the  prominent  lines 
of  communication,  and  commerce  is  extended  there  on  every  hand.  We 
have  nearly  as  much  control  of  the  Pacific  as  England  or  any  European 
power  has  of  the  Atlantic.  The  statistics  show  that  there  has  been  an 
increase  of  duties  paid  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  on  account 
of  the  commerce  built  up  by  the  Chinese  mail-line  greater  by  a  million  and 
a  half  of  dollars  than  the  amount  of  subsidy  which  has  been  paid  out  by  the 
Government  to  aid  in  maintaining  that  line.  The  Government  has  made 
money  by  it." 

Even  with  all  the  mishaps  and  scandals  which  attached  to 
that  unfortunate  line,  so  great  has  been  its  success,  that  it 
has  given  to  us  the  lead  in  the  commerce  of  the  Pacific  and 
has  yielded  back  a  larger  revenue,  aside  from  the  indirect 
benefits,  than  the  sum  paid  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United 
States  to  maintain  the  line. 

Mr.  WIIYTE.     May  I  ask  the  senator  from  Maine  — 

Mr.  BLAINE.     Ask  the  senator  from  California. 

Mr.  WHYTB.  No,  I  will  ask  the  senator  from  Maine.  He  is 
addressing  me,  and  in  reply  I  will  ask  him  the  question  whether 
the  building  of  the  Pacific  Railroad  has  not  increased  the  duties 
rather  than  the  Pacific  mail-line  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  The  duties  were  not  decreased  on  the  Atlantic 
side.  That  very  same  question  was  asked  the  senator  from 
California  at  the  time  by  the  senator  from  Vermont  [Mr. 
Morrill],  and  the  senator  from  California  answered  that  there 


TRADE  WITH  SOUTH  AMERICA.  193 

was  no  corresponding  decrease  to  be  shown  here.  The  senator 
means,  I  suppose,  that  it  merely  transferred  the  point  of  collec 
tion  ;  but  there  was  no  corresponding  decrease  anywhere,  and 
more  than  that,  as  the  senator  from  California  intimated  —  I 
am  really  borrowing  his  argument  —  the  effect  was  largely  to 
decrease  —  decrease  indeed  by  a  million  dollars  —  the  cost  of 
tea  to  the  consumers  in  this  country. 

I  do  not  come  from  a  steamship  State.  I  come  from  a  State 
that  builds  wooden  ships  and  has  sold  them  and  will  continue 
to  do  it,  for  the  day  of  wooden  ships  has  not  gone  by ;  they  will 
remain  for  long  voyages  and  for  freights  whose  value  is  not  de 
pendent  upon  a  particular  date  of  delivery.  They  will  remain 
I  suppose  as  long  as  the  tides  rise  and  the  winds  blow.  In  that 
field  the  State  I  represent  is  without  any  rival  in  this  country 
to-day.  But  is  this  country  willing  calmly  to  resign  the  sceptre 
of  the  ocean  to  Great  Britain?  Are  we  not  ready  to  make  one 
struggle,  not  for  the  North  Atlantic  —  that  is  so  entirely  pos 
sessed  by  others  that  we  are  crowded  out  of  it  —  but  a  struggle 
to  hold,  at  all  events,  some  sort  of  tenure  of  the  trade  in  South 
America  and  on  the  Pacific  Ocean? 

I  shall  vote  for  this  bill.  I  did  not  vote  for  the  bill  of  last 
winter.  I  did  not  think  it  was  a  wise  bill.  I  differed  from  my 
friend  from  Michigan,  and  I  especially  differed  from  my  honored 
colleague  from  whom  I  rarely  part  and  when  I  do  always  with 
the  impression  that  I  may  be  in  the  wrong ;  but  for  this  bill, 
which  offers  more  and  asks  less  than  any  other  subsidy  that  has 
ever  been  proposed  in  this  country,  I  shall  most  cheerfully  give 
my  vote. 

One  word  more.  I  always  think,  in  homely  phrase,  that  it  is 
wise  and  safe  to  do  the  thing  which  your  rival  does  not  want 
you  to  do.  I  am  sure  that  you  could  get  a  unanimous  vote  in 
the  British  House  of  Commons  against  the  grant  of  this  aid  by 
the  American  Congress.  I  am  sure  that  a  policy  for  which  the 
British  House  of  Commons  would  vote  unanimously,  it  is  not 
for  the  interest  of  the  American  Government  to  uphold. 


194  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


THE    PROGRESS    OF    THE    NORTH-WEST. 


[Address  of  James  G.  Elaine  at  the  Minneapolis  Fair,  Minnesota,  Tuesday, 
Sept.  3,  1878.] 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  An  assemblage  of  the  citizens  of  Minne 
sota,  coming  together  to  rejoice  over  abundant  harvests,  and  to 
view  the  bountiful  products  of  their  State,  is  well  calculated 
to  inspire  recollections  which  are  of  interest  beyond  the  limits 
of  the  audience  that  now  honor  me  with  their  attention. 

Near  the  borders  of  your  State,  on  the  banks  of  the  great 
river  now  flowing  in  our  sight,  there  resides  a  man  in  the  full 
vigor  of  an  honorable  old  age,  long  my  acquaintance  and  my 
friend,  whose  career  calls  vividly  to  mind  the  wonderful  prog 
ress  of  the  North- West.  In  the  last  two  years  of  General 
Jackson's  Presidency,  George  W.  Jones  was  the  delegate  in 
Congress  from  that  vast  area  now  forming  the  States  of  Michi 
gan,  Wisconsin,  Iowa,  and  Minnesota,  together  with  that  part 
of  the  Territory  of  Dakota  north  of  the  Missouri  River  and 
east  of  the  White  Earth.  In  the  last  preceding  Federal  census 
the  total  civilized  population  of  the  entire  territory  of  Michigan 
was  less  than  thirty-two  thousand  —  adventurous  men  standing 
on  the  outposts  of  civilization,  and  accepting  and  conquering 
the  hardships  of  the  frontier.  At  that  time  —  forty-three  years 
ago  —  there  were  but  two  newspapers  of  any  kind  whatever 
published  in  the  whole  country  of  which  I  have  spoken,  and 
not  one  of  these  west  of  Lake  Michigan.  To-day  the  same 
country  has  eight  senators,  twenty-nine  representatives,  and 
one  delegate  in  Congress ;  has  railroads  aggregating  eleven 
thousand  miles  in  length  and  five  hundred  millions  in  cost ;  has 
seventy-seven  daily  newspapers,  and  more  than  eleven  hundred 
weekly  or  monthly  publications;  has  great  cities  larger  than 


THE  PROGRESS  OF  THE  NORTH-WEST.  195 

Philadelphia  or  New  York  when  the  United  States  had  taken 
its  second  census  and  chosen  its  third  President ;  has  a  popu 
lation  as  great,  excluding  the  slaves  of  that  day,  as  had  the 
whole  country  when  we  met  Great  Britain  for  the  second  time 
in  war ;  produces  a  larger  amount  of  breadstuffs  than  the  entire 
Union  produced  when  General  Jones  entered  Congress ;  con 
tains  more  wealth  than  was  owned  in  the  eighteen  States  that 
divided  their  electoral  votes  between  James  Madison  and 
DeWitt  Clinton  for  the  Presidency  in  1812.  Such  facts  as 
these  may  well  cause  us  to  give  thanks  to  God  and  to  a  vir 
tuous  ancestry  for  the  blessings  of  liberty  and  good  government 
which  have  made  all  this  progress  possible. 

Geographically  the  State  of  Minnesota  is  a  land  of  singular 
and  surpassing  interest.  Lying  about  equi-distant  from  the 
great  oceans  on  the  east,  on  the  west,  on  the  north,  and  on  the 
south,  her  situation,  as  compared  with  her  sister  States,  is  alto 
gether  peculiar,  and  in  one  respect  is  without  parallel  on  any 
continent.  Her  surface  forms  the  central  water-shed  of  North 
America ;  and  not  far  from  where  we  stand  streams  have  their 
modest  sources  which  finally  lose  themselves  in  one  direction 
through  Hudson's  Bay  in  the  Arctic  waters,  in  another  through 
the  chain  of  the  great  lakes  in  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  and  a  third 
through  the  Mississippi  River  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  To  the 
westward,  nature  has  raised  an  insurmountable  barrier  to  the 
water-course,  but  the  invention  of  man  has  found  a  more  rapid 
transit ;  and  through  the  power  of  steam  and  over  the  road  of 
iron  there  is  already  projected  and  partly  achieved  the  great 
commercial  highway  to  the  Pacific  foretold  by  La  Salle  when, 
standing  on  the  banks  of  the  St.  Lawrence,  by  the  rapids  whose 
name  perpetuates  his  prophecy,  pointing  to  the  untrodden  West, 
whither  he  had  already  turned  his  face,  he  pronounced  to  his 
doubting  companions  the  inspiring  word,  "  La  Chine  !  " 

Viewed  historically,  that  which  now  constitutes  the  State  of 
Minnesota  has  undergone  as  many  and  as  rapid  changes  in  its 
sovereignty  as  any  disputed  territory  in  Europe  which  has 
been  fought  over  by  armed  hosts  set  in  motion  by  the  ambition 
of  kings  or  the  jealousy  of  rival  nationalities.  This  fair  land 
was  under  the  dominion  of  France  during  the  reigns  of  Louis 
XIV.  and  his  great-grandson.  Iberville,  who  led  the  French 


196  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIOXS. 

colony  to  Louisiana,  was  its  first  Governor,  and  Bienville,  who 
founded  New  Orleans,  was  its  second.  It  was  pawned  by  the 
Regent  Orleans  in  his  scheme  with  John  Law  for  creating  value 
out  of  moonshine,  and  was  made  with  other  territory  the  basis 
of  that  fraudulent  scheme  projected  by  the  Mississippi  Company 
—  in  which  real  estate  in  Minnesota,  still  in  the  undisputed 
possession  of  the  savage  and  the  wild  beast,  became  the  shadowy 
foundation  in  Paris,  one  hundred  and  sixty  years  ago,  of  a  far 
greater  monetary  credit  than  it  could  command  to-day  in  the 
same  financial  market,  with  all  its  improvements  and  its  great 
intrinsic  value.  It  was  in  part  under  the  dominion  of  George 
III.  of  England,  until  he  was  compelled  to  yield  his  right  to 
your  soil  by  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  to  withdraw  the  last  Red 
Coat  by  the  treaty  of  1795.  For  thirty-seven  years,  all  on  the 
west  side  of  your  dividing  river  was  attached  to  the  crown  of 
Spain  during  the  reigns  of  the  Third  and  Fourth  Charles,  and 
given  up  by  the  latter  in  1800  to  France,  when  for  a  period  of 
three  brief  years  Napoleon  Bonaparte  was  the  sovereign  ruler 
of  the  larger  half  of  Minnesota.  The  First  Consul  always 
did  business  on  a  basis  of  hard  cash,  and  he  transferred  the 
French  possessions  in  America  to  the  United  States  for  fifteen 
millions  of  dollars,  eighty  years  after  John  Law  and  his  spec 
ulating  partner,  the  Duke  of  Orleans,  had  made  the  same 
possessions  the  basis  for  an  issue  of  paper  money  amounting 
to  nearly  three  thousand  millions  of  francs.  Some  reflections 
are  naturally  suggested  by  these  facts  which  would  perhaps 
not  be  entirely  pertinent  to  an  address  before  an  Agricultural 
Society.  I  may  be  pardoned,  however,  for  the  inference  that 
the  "  resources  of  a  great  country  "  do  not  afford  a  sound  and 
secure  basis  for  an  enlarged  paper  currency. 

But  these  changes  of  European  sovereignty  over  the  soil  of 
Minnesota  are  not  more  striking  or  more  strange  than  the  rapid 
transformation  of  its  government  since  it  came  under  the 
sovereignty  of  the  United  States.  It  is  almost  forgotten  his 
tory,  that  the  eastern  half  of  your  State  was  claimed  during 
the  Revolutionary  struggle  as  part  of  Virginia,  by  no  less  a 
Governor  than  Thomas  Jefferson  ;  that  as  part  of  the  North 
west  Territory  the  gallant  but  unfortunate  Arthur  St.  Clair 
was  its  chief  Executive;  that  as  part  of  Indiana,  William 


THE  PROGRESS  OF  THE  NORTH-WEST.  197 

Henry  Harrison,  frontiersman,  soldier,  statesman,  was  made  its 
Governor  at  the  age  of  twenty-seven  years ;  that  as  part  of 
Illinois  the  large-framed  and  large-hearted  Ninian  Edwards 
ruled  over  it,  appointed  thereto  by  President  Madison  at  the 
personal  request  of  ua  young  senator  named  Clay"  as  he  is  sig 
nificantly  styled  in  a  certain  record ;  that  as  part  of  Michigan 
Territory,  General  Cass  was  its  efficient  and  careful  Executive ; 
that  as  part  of  Wisconsin,  the  chivalrous  and  courageous  Henry 
Dodge  was  its  popular  Governor  —  and  also  its  delegate  in 
Congress  from  one-half  its  domain,  while  his  worthy  and  still 
living  son,  as  delegate  at  the  same  time  from  Iowa,  represented 
the  other  half,  —  a  striking  coincidence,  rendered  still  more 
remarkable  by  the  meeting  again  of  father  and  son  as  Senators 
from  the  States  which  they  represented  in  the  House  when 
Territories. 

Nor  of  the  section  of  your  State  west  of  the  Mississippi  does 
it  read  less  strangely,  that  when  sold  to  the  National  Govern 
ment  by  Napoleon  Bonaparte  it  became  part  of  the  organized 
Territory  of  Louisiana ;  was  soon  changed  to  Missouri,  and 
had  for  long  years  as  its  Governor  the  brave,  adventurous  Wil 
liam  Clarke,  who  in  company  with  Meriwether  Lewis,  under  the 
direction  of  President  Jefferson,  made  that  extraordinary  jour 
ney  from  ocean  to  ocean  —  the  first  white  men  who  crossed  the 
continent  on  soil  belonging  to  the  United  States,  leaving  their 
names  forever  associated  with  a  great  achievement,  familiar  to 
all  who  have  read  the  hardships  and  conquests  of  the  "  Lewis 
and  Clarke "  expedition.  Minnesota  afterwards  formed  part 
of  the  magnificent  and  rapidly  growing  Territory  of  Iowa, 
which  soon  took  on  the  stature  of  a  full-grown,  vigorous  Com 
monwealth. 

Iowa  and  Wisconsin  having  been  admitted  as  States,  their 
joint  remainders  naturally  formed  one  government,  and  in 
1849  the  Territory  of  Minnesota  was  organized.  Thus  Min 
nesota,  east  and  west  of  the  Mississippi  fell  under  the  same 
government  for  the  first  time  since  the  United  States  had 
acquired  Louisiana  from  France,  with  the  exception  of  a  brief 
period  under  the  old  territorial  organization  of  Michigan,  and 
an  equally  brief  one  under  that  of  Wisconsin.  That  seems  but 
yesterday ;  yet  the  sowing  of  the  next  crop  will  mark  full 


198  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

rounded  thirty  years  since  the  organic  Act  was  passed  by  Con 
gress,  and  President  Zachaiy  Taylor  appointed  Alexander  Ram 
sey  first  Governor  of  the  new  Territory.  His  Excellency  is 
among  you  to-day,  after  enjoying  the  highest  honors  of  your 
Territory  and  your  State,  looking  as  fresh  and  as  vigorous  as 
when  in  the  administrations  of  John  Tyler  and  James  K.  Polk 
he  represented  a  Pennsylvania  district  in  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States.  He  might  pass  still  as  a  young  man,  if  his  lu 
minous  record,  made  in  two  States  and  in  both  branches  of 
Congress,  did  not  enable  us  to  measure  the  threescore  years 
that  crown  his  honored  head. 

To  trace  the  history  and  development  of  Minnesota  from  its 
organization  in  1849  would  far  transcend  the  proprieties  or 
even  the  possibilities  of  this  occasion.  But  whoever  will  enter 
into  the  details  of  the  progress  here  made  will  find  one  of  the 
most  remarkable  advances  of  civilization,  and  in  a  period  so 
brief  that  it  does  not  comprehend  the  life  of  one  generation. 
In  1849  your  Territory  contained  but  forty-six  hundred  inhabit 
ants  ;  to-day  your  State  has  seven  hundred  thousand.  In  1849 
you  raised  fourteen  hundred  bushels  of  wheat ;  last  year  you 
raised  thirty-three  million  bushels.  These  figures  are  but  an 
index  to  your  increase  in  all  forms  of  material  wealth.  The 
pages  of  your  census  tables  seem  like  a  romance,  the  statistics 
of  your  progress  dazzle  the  reader  with  their  proportions  and 
almost  challenge  his  credulity  at  every  column. 

I  am  addressing  an  agricultural  community.  During  all 
the  depression  of  trade  and  commerce  and  manufactures  in 
these  past  five  years,  you  have  steadily  advanced  in  comfort 
and  independence.  While  thousands  elsewhere  have  lacked 
employment,  and  many,  I  fear,  have  lacked  bread,  no  able- 
bodied  man  in  Minnesota  has  been  without  remunerative 
labor  and  no  one  has  gone  to  bed  hungry.  Your  pursuits  and 
their  results  form  the  basis  of  the  ideal  Republic  —  happily 
realized  within  your  own  borders.  The  tendency  of  all  your 
industry  is  toward  the  accumulation  of  individual  competency, 
and  does  not  favor  the  upbuilding  of  colossal  fortunes.  You 
are  dealing  daily  with  the  essential  things  of  life,  and  are  not 
warped  in  your  judgment  or  deflected  from  your  course  by 
speculative  and  illusory  schemes  of  gain.  You  are  land-owners, 


THE  PROGRESS  OF  THE  NORTH-WEST.  199 

free-holders,  proud  titles  that  come  to  us  with  centuries  of  civ 
ilization  and  strength  —  titles  that  every  man  in  this  country 
should  make  it  his  object  to  acquire  and  to  honor.  Self-gov 
ernment  among  the  owners  of  the  soil  in  America  is  an  in 
stinct,  and  where  that  ownership  is  widely  distributed  good 
government  is  the  rule.  Whatever  disturbances  therefore  may 
threaten  the  peace  and  order  of  society,  whatever  wild  theories, 
transplanted  from  other  climes,  may  seek  foot-hold  here,  the 
Republic  of  the  United  States  rests  securely  on  that  basis  of 
agriculture  where  the  farmers  of  the  Revolution  and  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution  placed  it.  The  man  who  possesses  broad 
acres  which  he  has  earned  by  the  sweat  of  his  own  face,  is  not 
apt  to  fall  in  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Communist,  that  no  one 
has  a  right  to  ownership  in  the  soil.  The  man  who  has  the 
product  of  his  labor  in  wheat  and  in  corn,  in  pork  and  in  beef, 
in  hides  and  in  wool  —  commanding  gold  and  silver  as  they 
always  have  done  and  always  will  do  in  the  markets  of  the 
world  —  is  not  to  be  led  astray  with  theories  of  fiat  paper  and 
absolute  money,  but  instinctively  consigns  such  wild  vagaries 
to  the  appropriate  domain  of  fiat  folly  and  absolute  nonsense. 

The  farmers  of  the  Republic  will  control  its  destiny.  Agri 
culture,  commerce  and  manufactures  are  the  three  pursuits 
that  enrich  a  nation  —  but  the  greatest  of  these  is  agriculture 
—  for  without  its  products  the  spindle  cannot  turn  and  the 
ship  will  not  sail.  Agriculture  furnishes  the  conservative  ele 
ment  in  society  and  in  the  end  is  the  guiding,  restraining,  con 
trolling  force  in  government.  Against  storms  of  popular  fury ; 
against  frenzied  madness  that  seeks  collision  with  established 
order;  against  theories  of  administration  that  have  drenched 
other  lands  in  blood ;  against  the  spirit  of  anarchy  that  would 
sweep  away  the  landmarks  and  safeguards  of  Christian  society 
and  Republican  government,  the  farmers  of  the  United  States 
will  stand  as  the  shield  and  the  bulwark  —  themselves  the  will 
ing  subjects  of  law  and  therefore  its  safest  and  strongest 
administrators. 

Gradually  the  Government  of  the  Republic  is  passing  under 
the  control  of  the  farmers  of  the  Mississippi  valley.  Indeed  it 
is  practically  there  to-day.  The  swelling  and  on-rushing  tide 
of  population  is  towards  the  broad  plains  and  the  rich  acres 


200  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

that  lie  between  the  two  mountain  ranges  of  the  continent. 
The  soil  is  so  fertile,  the  land  so  inviting,  the  area  so  broad, 
that  no  man  may  dare  calculate  the  possibilities  of  this  great 
region  either  as  respects  production  or  population.  Your  own 
State,  peopled  no  more  densely  than  New  York,  would  have  a 
population  of  nine  millions ;  peopled  as  densely  as  Massachu 
setts,  it  would  have  a  population  of  sixteen  millions.  With 
the  transfer  of  political  control  from  the  old  States  to  the  new, 
there  is  also  transferred  a  vast  weight  of  responsibility.  It  is 
yours  to-day  ;  it  will  be  yours  still  more  to-morrow.  Take  it ; 
use  it  wisely  and  well  for  the  advancement  of  the  whole  —  for 
the  honor  of  all.  The  patriotic  traditions  of  the  "  old  thirteen  " 
that  fought  the  battles  of  the  Revolution,  formed  the  Union 
of  the  States,  and  planted  Liberty  in  the  organic  Law,  will  be 
your  safest  guide,  your  highest  inspiration.  Many  of  you 
to-day  mingle  with  your  love  for  Minnesota,  your  earlier  affec- 
tion  for  the  old  home  and  the  old  State  far  to  the  East,  where 
an  honored  ancestry  lie  buried,  and  where  the  tenderest  memo 
ries  cluster  around  the  familiar  scenes  of  days  long  past.  It 
is  this  kinship  of  blood,  these  ties  of  memory,  that  make  us 
indeed  one  people  —  uniting  the  East  and  the  West,  the  North 
and  the  South,  in  the  indissoluble  bonds  of  a  common,  and  I 
trust,  always  beneficent  Government. 


SOUTHERN  ABUSE  OF  ELECTIVE  FRANCHISE.         201 


SOUTHERN    ABUSE    OF    ELECTIVE    FRANCHISE. 


[On  the  2d  of  December,  1878,  Mr.  Elaine  submitted  the  following  resolution 
to  the  Senate :  — 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  he  instructed  to  inquire  and 
report  to  the  Senate  whether  at  the  recent  elections  the  Constitutional  rights  of 
American  citizens  were  violated  in  any  of  the  States  of  the  Union;  whether  the 
right  of  suffrage  of  citizens  of  the  United  States,  or  of  any  class  of  such  citizens, 
was  denied  or  abridged  by  the  action  of  the  election  officers  of  any  State  in  refus 
ing  to  receive  their  votes,  in  failing  to  count  them,  or  in  receiving  and  counting 
fraudulent  ballots  in  pursuance  of  a  conspiracy  to  make  the  lawful  votes  of  such 
citizens  of  none  effect;  and  whether  such  citizens  were  prevented  from  exercis 
ing  the  elective  franchise,  or  forced  to  use  it  against  their  wishes,  by  violence  or 
threats,  or  hostile  demonstrations  of  armed  men  or  other  organizations,  or  by  any 
other  unlawful  means  or  practices. 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  be  further  instructed  to  inquire 
and  report  whether  it  is  within  the  competency  of  Congress  to  provide  by  addi 
tional  legislation  for  the  more  perfect  security  of  the  right  of  suffrage  to  citizens 
of  the  United  States  in  all  the  States  of  the  Union. 

Resolved,  That  in  prosecuting  these  inquiries  the  Judiciary  Committee  shall 
have  the  right  to  send  for  persons  and  papers. 

On  Wednesday,  Dec.  11,  Mr.  Elaine  addressed  the  Senate  as  follows:  —  ] 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  The  pending  resolutions  were  offered  by 
me  with  a  twofold  purpose  in  view :  — 

First,  to  place  on  record,  in  a  definite  and  authentic  form, 
the  frauds  and  outrages  by  which  certain  recent  elections  for 
representatives  in  Congress  were  carried  by  the  Democratic 
party  in  the  Southern  States. 

Second,  to  find  if  there  be  any  method  by  which  a  repetition 
of  these  crimes  against  a  free  ballot  may  be  prevented. 

The  newspaper  is  the  channel  through  which  the  people  of 
the  United  States  are  informed  of  current  events,  and  the 
accounts  given  in  the  press  represent  the  elections  in  some  of 
the  Southern  States  to  have  been  accompanied  by  violence, 
in  not  a  few  cases  reaching  the  destruction  of  life ;  to  have 
been  controlled  by  threats  that  awed  and  intimidated  a  large 


202  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

class  of  voters ;  to  have  been  manipulated  by  fraud  of  the  most 
shameless  and  shameful  description.  Indeed  in  South  Carolina 
there  seems  to  have  been  no  election  at  all  in  any  proper  sense 
of  the  term.  There  was  a  series  of  skirmishes  over  the  State, 
in  which  the  polling-places  were  regarded  as  forts  to  be  cap 
tured  by  one  party  and  held  against  the  other ;  and  where  this 
could  not  be  done  with  convenience,  frauds  in  the  count,  and 
tissue-ballot  devices  were  resorted  to  in  order  effectually  to 
destroy  the  voice  of  the  majority.  These  in  brief  are  the 
accounts  given  in  the  non-partisan  press,  of  the  disgraceful 
outrages  that  attended  the  recent  elections ;  and  so  far  as  I 
have  seen,  these  statements  are  without  serious  contradiction. 
It  is  but  just  and  fair  to  all  parties,  however,  that  an  impartial 
investigation  of  the  facts  shall  be  made  by  a  committee  of  the 
Senate,  proceeding  under  the  authority  of  law  and  representing 
the  power  of  the  Nation.  Hence  my  resolution. 

But  we  do  not  need  investigation  to  establish  certain  facts 
already  of  official  record.  We  know  that  one  hundred  and  six 
representatives  in  Congress  were  recently  chosen  in  the  States 
formerly  slave-holding,  and  that  the  Democrats  elected  one 
hundred  and  one  or  possibly  one  hundred  and  two  and  the 
Republicans  four  or  possibly  five.  We  know  that  thirty-five 
of  these  representatives  were  assigned  to  the  Southern  States 
by  reason  of  the  colored  population,  and  that  the  entire  politi 
cal  power  thus  founded  on  the  numbers  of  the  colored  people 
has  been  seized  and  appropriated  to  the  aggrandizement  of  its 
own  strength  by  the  Democratic  party  of  the  South. 

The  issue  thus  raised  before  the  country,  Mr.  President,  is 
not  one  of  mere  sentiment  for  the  rights  of  the  negro  —  though 
far  distant  be  the  day  when  the  rights  of  any  American  citizen, 
however  black  or  however  poor,  shall  form  the  mere  dust  of  the 
balance  in  any  controversy.  Nor  is  the  issue  one  that  involves 
the  waving  of  the  "  bloody  shirt,"  to  quote  the  elegant  vernacu 
lar  of  Democratic  vituperation  ;  nor  still  further  is  the  issue  as 
now  presented  only  a  question  of  the  equality  of  the  black 
voter  of  the  South  with  the  white  voter  of  the  South.  The 
issue,  Mr.  President,  has  taken  a  far  wider  range,  one  indeed 
of  portentous  magnitude  ;  viz.,  whether  the  white  voter  of  the 
North  shall  be  equal  to  the  white  voter  of  the  South  in  shaping 


SOUTHERN  ABUSE  OF  ELECTIVE  FRANCHISE.        203 

the  policy  and  fixing  the  destiny  of  this  country ;  or  whether, 
to  state  it  still  more  baldly,  the  white  man  who  fought  in  the 
ranks  of  the  Union  Army  shall  have  as  weighty  and  influential 
a  vote  in  the  Government  of  the  Republic  as  the  white  man 
who  fought  in  the  ranks  of  the  Rebel  Army.  The  one  fought 
to  uphold,  the  other  to  destroy,  the  Union  of  the  States,  and 
to-day  he  who  fought  to  destroy  is  a  far  more  important 
factor  in  the  Government  of  the  Nation  than  he  who  fought  to 
uphold. 

Let  me  illustrate  my  meaning  by  comparing  groups  of  States 
of  the  same  representative  strength  North  and  South.  The 
States  of  South  Carolina,  Mississippi,  and  Louisiana  send  seven 
teen  representatives  to  Congress.  Their  aggregate  popula 
tion  is  composed  of  one  million  and  thirty-five  thousand  whites 
and  one  million  two  hundred  and  twenty-four  thousand  col 
ored;  the  colored  being  nearly  two  hundred  thousand  in  ex 
cess  of  the  whites.  Of  the  seventeen  representatives,  it  is 
evident  that  nine  were  apportioned  to  these  States  by  reason 
of  their  colored  population,  and  only  eight  by  reason  of  their 
white  population  ;  and  yet  in  the  choice  of  the  entire  seven 
teen  representatives  the  colored  voters  had  no  more  voice 
or  power  than  their  remote  kindred  on  the  shores  of  Sene- 
gambia  or  on  the  coast  of  Guinea.  The  one  million  and 
thirty-five  thousand  white  people  had  the  sole  and  absolute 
choice  of  the  entire  seventeen  representatives.  In  contrast, 
two  States  in  the  North,  Iowa  and  Wisconsin,  Avith  seventeen 
representatives  have  a  white  population  of  two  million  two 
hundred  and  forty-seven  thousand,  considerably  more  than 
double  the  entire  white  population  of  the  three  Southern 
States  I  have  named.  In  Iowa  and  Wisconsin,  therefore,  it 
takes  one  hundred  and  thirty-two  thousand  white  population 
to  send  a  representative  to  Congress,  but  in  Soutli  Carolina, 
Mississippi,  and  Louisiana  every  sixty  thousand  white  people 
send  a  representative.  In  other  words,  sixt}^  thousand  white 
people  in  those  Southern  States  have  precisely  the  same  politi 
cal  power  in  the  government  of  the  country  that  one  hun 
dred  and  thirty-two  thousand  white  people  have  in  Iowa  and 
Wisconsin. 

Take  another  group  of  seventeen  representatives  from  the 


204  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

South  and  from  the  North.  Georgia  and  Alabama  have  a  white 
population  of  eleven  hundred  and  fifty-eight  thousand  and  a 
colored  population  of  ten  hundred  and  twenty  thousand.  They 
send  seventeen  representatives  to  Congress,  of  whom  nine 
were  apportioned  on  account  of  the  white  population  and  eight 
on  account  of  the  colored  population.  But  the  colored  voters 
are  not  able  to  choose  a  single  representative,  the  white  Demo 
crats  choosing  the  whole  seventeen.  The  four  Northern  States, 
Michigan,  Minnesota,  Nebraska,  and  California,  have  seventeen 
representatives,  based  on  a  white  population  of  two  and  a 
quarter  millions,  or  almost  double  the  white  population  of 
Georgia  and  Alabama,  so  that  in  these  relative  groups  of  States 
we  find  the  white  man  in  the  South  exercising  by  his  vote 
double  the  political  power  of  the  white  man  in  the  North. 

Let  us  carry  the  comparison  to  a  more  comprehensive  gener 
alization.  The  eleven  States  that  formed  the  Confederate  gov 
ernment  had  by  the  last  census  a  population  of  nine  and  a  half 
millions,  of  which  in  round  numbers  five  and  a  half  millions 
were  white  and  four  millions  colored.  On  this  aggregate  popu 
lation  seventy-three  representatives  in  Congress  were  appor 
tioned  to  those  States,  forty-two  or  three  of  which  were  by 
reason  of  the  white  population,  and  thirty  or  thirty-one  by 
reason  of  the  colored  population.  At  the  recent  election  the 
white  Democracy  of  the  South  seized  seventy  of  the  seventy- 
three  districts,  and  thus  secured  a  Democratic  majority  in  the 
next  House  of  Representatives.  Thus  it  appears  that  through 
out  the  States  which  formed  the  late  Confederate  Government, 
sixty-five  thousand  whites  —  the  very  people  that  rebelled 
against  the  Union  —  are  enabled  to  elect  a  representative  in 
Congress,  while  in  the  loyal  States  it  requires  one  hundred  and 
thirty-two  thousand  of  the  white  people  that  fought  for  the 
Union  to  elect  a  representative.  In  levying  every  tax,  therefore, 
in  making  every  appropriation  of  money,  in  fixing  every  line 
of  public  policy,  in  decreeing  what  shall  be  the  fate  and  for 
tune  of  the  Republic,  the  Confederate  soldier  South  is  enabled 
to  cast  a  vote  that  is  twice  as  influential  and  twice  as  powerful 
as  the  vote  of  the  Union  soldier  North. 

But  the  white  men  of  the  South  did  not  acquire  and  do  not 
hold  this  superior  power  by  reason  of  law  or  justice,  but  in 


SOUTHERN  ABUSE  OF  ELECTIVE  FRANCHISE.        205 

disregard  and  defiance  of  both.  The  Fourteenth  Amendment 
to  the  Constitution  was  expected  to  be  and  was  designed  to  be 
a  preventive  and  corrective  of  all  such  possible  abuses.  The 
reading  of  the  clause  applicable  to  the  case  is  instructive  and 
suggestive.  Hear  it :  — 

"  Representatives  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several  States  according 
to  their  respective  numbers,  counting  the  whole  number  of  persons  in  each 
State,  excluding  Indians  not  taxed.  But  when  the  right  to  vote  at  any 
election  for  the  choice  of  electors  for  President  and  Vice-President  of  the 
United  States,  Representatives  in  Congress,  the  executive  and  judicial 
officers  of  a  State,  or  the  members  of  the  Legislature  thereof,  is  denied  to 
any  of  the  male  inhabitants  of  such  State,  being  twenty-one  years  of  age, 
and  citizens  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  wray  abridged,  except  for  par 
ticipation  in  rebellion,  or  other  crime,  the  basis  ol  representation  therein 
shall  be  reduced  in  the  proportion  which  the  number  of  such  male  citizens 
shall  bear  to  the  whole  number  of  male  citizens  twenty-one  years  of  age  in 
such  State." 

The  patent,  undeniable  intent  of  this  provision  was  that  if 
any  class  of  voters  should  be  denied  or  in  any  way  abridged  in 
their  right  of  suffrage,  then  the  class  so  denied  or  abridged 
should  not  be  counted  in  the  basis  of  representation  ;  or,  in 
other  words,  that  no  State  or  States  should  gain  a  large  in 
crease  of  representation  in  Congress  by  reason  of  counting  any 
class  of  population  not  permitted  to  take  part  in  electing  such 
representatives.  But  the  construction  given  to  this  provision 
is  that  before  any  forfeiture  of  representation  can  be  enforced 
the  denial  or  abridgment  of  suffrage  must  be  the  result  of  a 
law  specifically  enacted  by  the  State.  Under  this  construction 
every  negro  voter  may  have  his  suffrage  absolutely  denied  or 
fatally  abridged  by  the  violence,  actual  or  threatened,  of  irre 
sponsible  mobs,  or  by  frauds  and  deceptions  of  State  officers 
from  the  governor  down  to  the  last  election  clerk,  and  then, 
unless  some  State  law  can  be  shown  that  authorizes  the  denial 
or  abridgment,  the  State  escapes  all  penalty  or  peril  of  reduced 
representation.  This  construction  may  be  upheld  by  the 
courts,  ruling  on  the  letter  of  the  law,  "  which  killeth,"  but 
the  spirit  of  justice  cries  aloud  against  the  evasive  and  atro 
cious  conclusion  that  deals  out  oppression  to  the  innocent  and 
shields  the  guilty  from  the  legitimate  consequences  of  willful 
transgression. 

The  colored  citizen   is   thus   most  unhappily  situated;    his 


206  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

right  of  suffrage  is  but  a  hollow  mockery ;  it  holds  to  his  ear 
the  word  of  promise  but  breaks  it  always  to  his  hope,  and  he 
ends  only  in  being  made  the  unwilling  instrument  of  increasing 
the  political  strength  of  that  party  from  which  he  suffered 
ever-tightening  fetters  when  he  was  a  slave  and  contemptuous 
refusal  of  civil  rights  since  he  was  made  free.  He  resembles 
indeed  those  unhappy  captives  in  the  East  who,  deprived  of 
their  birthright,  are  compelled  to  yield  their  strength  to  the 
aggrandizement  of  the  monarch  from  whose  tyrannies  they  have 
most  to  fear,  and  to  fight  against  the  power  from  which  alone 
deliverance  might  be  expected.  The  franchise  intended  for  the 
shield  and  defense  of  the  negro  has  been  turned  against  him  and 
against  his  friends  and  has  vastly  increased  the  power  of  those 
from  whom  he  has  nothing  to  hope  and  every  thing  to  dread. 

The  political  strength  thus  unjustly  seized  by  Southern  Demo 
crats  by  reason  of  the  negro  population  is  equal  to  thirty-five 
representatives  in  Congress.  It  is  massed  almost  solidly  and 
offsets  the  great  State  of  New  York ;  or  Pennsylvania  and 
New  Jersey  together ;  or  the  whole  of  New  England ;  or  Ohio 
and  Indiana  united ;  or  the  combined  strength  of  Illinois, 
Minnesota,  Kansas,  California,  Nevada,  Nebraska,  Colorado, 
and  Oregon.  The  seizure  of  this  power  is  wanton  usurpation  ; 
it  is  flagrant  outrage ;  it  is  violent  perversion  of  the  whole 
theory  of  Republican  government.  It  inures  solely  to  the 
apparent  advantage  and  yet,  I  believe,  to  the  permanent  dis 
honor  of  the  Democratic  party.  It  is  by  reason  of  this  tram 
pling  down  of  human  rights,  this  ruthless  seizure  of  unlawful 
power,  that  the  Democratic  party  holds  the  popular  branch  of 
Congress  to-day  and  will  in  less  than  ninety  days  have  control 
of  this  body  also,  thus  grasping  the  entire  Legislative  depart 
ment  of  the  Government  through  the  unlawful  capture  of  the 
Southern  States.  If  the  proscribed  vote  of  the  South  were 
cast  as  its  lawful  owners  desire,  the  Democratic  party  could 
not  gain  control.  Nay,  if  the  ballot  of  the  colored  man  were 
not  counted  on  the  other  side,  against  the  instincts  and  the 
interests,  against  the  principles  and  the  prejudices,  of  its  law 
ful  owners,  Democratic  success  would  be  hopeless.  It  is  not 
enough,  then,  for  modern  Democratic  tactics  that  the  negro 
vote  shall  be  silenced;  the  demand  goes  farther  and  insists 


SOUTHERN  ABUSE  OF  ELECTIVE  FRANCHISE.         207 

that  it  shall  be  counted  on  the  Democratic  side,  that  all  the 
representatives  in  Congress  and  all  the  Presidential  electors 
apportioned  by  reason  of  the  negro  vote  shall  be  so  cast  and 
so  controlled  as  to  insure  Democratic  success  —  regardless  of 
justice,  in  defiance  of  law. 

This  great  wrong  is  wholly  unprovoked.  I  doubt  if  it  be  in 
the  power  of  the  most  searching  investigation  to  show  that 
in  any  Southern  State  during  the  period  of  Republican  control 
any  legal  voter  was  ever  debarred  from  the  freest  exercise  of 
his  suffrage.  Even  the  revenges  which  would  have  leaped  into 
life  with  many  who  despised  the  negro  were  buried  out  of  sight 
with  a  magnanimity  which  the  "  superior  race  "  fail  to  follow 
and  seem  reluctant  to  recognize.  I  know  it  is  said  in  reply  to 
such  charges  against  the  Southern  elections  as  I  am  now  review 
ing,  that  unfairness  of  equal  gravity  prevails  in  Northern  elec 
tions.  I  hear  it  in  many  quarters  and  read  it  in  the  papers 
that  in  the  late  exciting  election  in  Massachusetts  intimidation 
and  bulldozing,  if  not  so  rough  and  rancorous  as  in  the  South, 
were  yet  as  wide-spread  and  effective. 

I  have  read  and  yet  I  refuse  to  believe  that  the  distinguished 
gentleman,  who  made  an  energetic  but  unsuccessful  canvass  for 
the  governorship  of  that  State,  has  indorsed  and  approved  these 
charges,  and  I  have  accordingly  made  my  resolution  broad 
enough  to  include  their  thorough  investigation.  I  am  not 
demanding  fair  elections  in  the  South  without  demanding  fair 
elections  in  the  North  also.  But  venturing  to  speak  for  the 
New  England  States,  of  whose  laws  and  customs  I  know  some 
thing,  I  dare  assert  that  in  the  late  election  in  Massachusetts, 
or  any  of  her  neighboring  Commonwealths,  it  will  be  impossible 
to  find  even  one  case  where  a  voter  was  driven  from  the  polls, 
where  a  voter  did  not  have  the  fullest,  fairest,  freest  opportunity 
to  cast  the  ballot  of  his  choice  and  have  it  honestly  and  faith 
fully  counted  in  the  returns.  Suffrage  on  this  continent  was 
first  made  universal  in  New  England,  and  in  the  administra 
tion  of  their  affairs  her  people  have  found  no  other  appeal 
necessary  than  that  which  is  addressed  to  their  honesty  of  con 
viction  and  to  their  intelligent  self-interest.  If  there  be  any 
thing  different  to  disclose  I  pray  you  show  it  to  us  that  we 
may  amend  our  ways. 


208  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

But  whenever  a  feeble  protest  is  made  against  such  injustice 
as  I  have  described  in  the  South,  the  response  we  receive  comes 
to  us  in  the  form  of  a  taunt,  "  What  are  you  going  to  do  about 
it  ?  "  and  "  How  do  you  propose  to  help  yourselves  ?  "  This  is 
the  stereotyped  answer  of  defiance  which  intrenched  wrong 
always  gives  to  inquiring  justice.  Those  who  imagine  it  to 
be  conclusive  do  not  know  the  temper  of  the  American  people. 
For  let  me  assure  you  that  against  the  complicated  outrage 
upon  the  right  of  representation  lately  triumphant  in  the  South 
there  will  be  arrayed  many  phases  of  public  opinion  in  the 
North  not  often  hitherto  in  harmony.  Men  who  have  cared 
little,  and  affected  to  care  less,  for  the  rights  or  the  wrongs  of 
the  negro  suddenly  find  that  vast  monetary  and  commercial 
interests,  great  questions  of  revenue,  adjustments  of  tariff, 
investments  in  manufactures,  in  railways,  and  in  mines,  are 
under  the  control  of  a  Democratic  Congress  whose  majority 
was  obtained  by  depriving  the  negro  of  his  rights  under  a  com 
mon  Constitution  and  common  laws.  Men  who  have  expressed 
disgust  with  the  waving  of  bloody  shirts  and  have  been  offended 
with  talk  about  negro  equality  are  beginning  to  perceive  that 
the  question  of  to-day  relates  more  pressingly  to  the  equality 
of  white  men  under  this  Government,  and  that  however  care 
less  they  may  be  about  the  rights  or  the  wrongs  of  the  negro, 
they  are  jealous  and  tenacious  about  the  rights  of  their  own 
race  and  the  dignity  of  their  own  firesides  and  their  own 
kindred. 

I  know  something  of  public  opinion  in  the  North.  I  know  a 
great  deal  about  the  views,  wishes,  and  purposes  of  the  Repub 
lican  party  of  the  Nation.  Within  that  entire  great  organiza 
tion  there  is  not  one  man,  whose  opinion  is  entitled  to  be  quoted, 
that  does  not  desire  peace  and  harmon}^  and  friendship  and 
a  patriotic  and  fraternal  union  between  the  North  and  the 
South.  This  wish  is  spontaneous  and  universal  throughout  the 
Northern  States ;  and  yet,  among  men  of  character  and  sense, 
there  is  surely  no  need  of  attempting  to  deceive  ourselves  as 
to  the  precise  truth.  First  pure,  then  peaceable.  Gush  will 
not  remove  a  grievance,  and  no  disguise  of  State  rights  will 
close  the  eyes  of  our  people  to  the  necessity  of  correcting  a 
great  National  wrong.  Nor  should  the  South  make  the  fatal 


SOUTHERN  ABUSE  OF  ELECTIVE  FRANCHISE.        209 

mistake  of  concluding  that  injustice  to  the  negro  is  not  also 
injustice  to  the  white  man ;  nor  should  it  ever  be  forgotten  that 
for  the  wrongs  of  both  a  remedy  will  assuredly  be  found.  The 
war,  with  all  its  costly  sacrifices,  was  fought  in  vain  unless 
equal  rights  for  all  classes  be  established  in  all  the  States  of 
the  Union.  In  words  which  are  those  of  friendship,  however 
they  may  be  accepted,  I  tell  the  men  of  the  South  here  on  this 
floor  and  beyond  this  Chamber,  that  even  if  they  could  strip 
the  negro  of  his  Constitutional  rights  they  can  never  perma 
nently  maintain  the  inequality  of  white  men  in  this  nation. 
They  can  never  make  a  white  man's  vote  in  the  South  doubly 
as  powerful  in  the  administration  of  the  Government  as  a  white 
man's  vote  in  the  North. 

In  a  memorable  debate  in  the  House  of  Commons,  Mr. 
Macaulay  reminded  Daniel  O'Connell,  when  he  was  moving 
for  Repeal,  that  the  English  Whigs  had  endured  calumny,  abuse, 
popular  fury,  loss  of  position,  exclusion  from  Parliament  rather 
than  that  the  great  agitator  himself  should  be  less  than  a  British 
subject ;  and  Mr.  Macaulay  warned  him  that  they  would  never 
suffer  him  to  be  more.  Let  me  now  remind  you  that  the  Gov 
ernment,  under  whose  protecting  flag  we  sit  to-day,  sacrificed 
myriads  of  lives  and  expended  thousands  of  millions  of  treas 
ure  that  our  countrymen  of  the  South  should  remain  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  having  equal  personal  rights  and  equal 
political  privileges  with  all  other  citizens.  I  venture,  now 
and  here,  to  warn  the  men  of  the  South,  in  the  exact  words 
of  Macaulay,  that  we  will  never  suffer  them  to  be  more ! 

[NOTE.  —The  resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Elaine  was  amended  by  assigning  tho 
work  of  investigation  to  a  special  committee  instead  of  the  Judiciary.  The  report 
of  the  well-known  "  Teller  Committee  "  was  the  result  of  the  movement.] 


210  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


SPEECH  OF  MR.  ELAINE  AT  THE  DINNER  OF 
THE  NEW  ENGLAND  SOCIETY  OF  NEW  YORK, 
DEC.  23,  1878. 

[The  President  of  the  Society,  Mr.  D.  F.  Appleton,  called  on  Senator  Elaine 
to  respond  to  the  following  toast,  introducing  him,  not  as  a  native,  but  as  a 
representative  man  from  New  England :  — 

"New  England  Character  —  adapted  to  every  requirement:  it  fits  her  sons 
not  only  to  fill,  but  to  adorn  every  station."  Mr.  Elaine's  response  is  given 
below.] 

GENTLEMEN  OF  THE  NEW  ENGLAND  SOCIETY,  --  Your 
President  has  kindly  relieved  me  from  a  personal  explanation. 
I  am  only  a  brother-in-law,  so  to  speak.  Brothers-in-law  are 
useful  in  families  occasionally,  and  in  a  New-England  family, 
where  modesty  is  the  prevailing  fault,  and  where  you  can 
rarely  induce  one  of  the  direct  blood  and  descent  to  say  any 
thing  in  praise  of  his  race,  it  is,  perhaps,  fortunate  that,  unem 
barrassed  by  personal  prudery,  I  can  speak  my  mind  freely 
about  you.  I  never  saw  New  England  until  after  I  was  a  man 
grown,  but  I  have  lived  more  than  half  my  life  on  its  soil,  and 
I  have  six  children,  who  represent  the  ninth  generation  in 
descent  from  ancestors  who  belonged  to  the  old  Massachusetts 
colony.  I  am  ready  to  say,  Mr.  President,  in  any  presence, 
recollecting,  as  I  always  do,  with  pride,  my  Pennsylvania  birth 
and  my  Scotch  and  Scotch-Irish  ancestry  —  I  am  ready  to  say, 
that  in  the  settlement  of  this  continent  and  the  shaping  and 
moulding  of  its  free  institutions,  the  leading  place  belongs  to 
New  England.  Every  chapter  of  its  stalwart  history  is 
weighty  with  momentous  events.  A  small  number  of  immi 
grants  came  in  1620  ;  there  was  no  appreciable  increase  of  immi 
gration  until  after  1630 ;  there  was  none  after  1640.  The 
twenty-one  thousand  men  who  came  in  those  brief  years  are 
the  progenitors  of  a  race  that  includes  one-third  of  the  people 


ADDRESS  BEFORE  THE  NEW  ENGLAND  SOCIETY.     211 

of  the  United  States  of  America.  They  are  the  progenitors  of 
a  race  of  people  twice  as  numerous  as  all  who  spoke  the  Eng 
lish  language  when  they  came  to  these  shores. 

The  tyrannical  father  of  Frederick  the  Great  said  to  his 
tutor,  "  Instruct  this  young  boy  in  history ;  do  not  dwell  much 
on  the  ancients,  but  let  him  know  every  thing  that  has  hap 
pened  in  the  last  hundred  and  fifty  years."  I  submit  to  you, 
Mr.  President,  that  the  great  event  which  has  happened  in  the 
last  hundred  and  fifty  years  has  been  the  progress  of  the  Eng 
lish-speaking  race.  Not  seven  millions  of  people  spoke  the 
tongue  when  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  landed  at  Plymouth;  not 
seventeen  millions  spoke  it  when  the  American  Revolution 
was  born.  In  this  hundred  years  the  progress  of  other  nations 
has  been  great.  The  German  empire  has  been  re-formed,  and 
is  stronger  and  firmer  than  it  ever  existed  before  ;  Russia, 
springing  from  semi-barbarism,  has  come  to  be  a  first-class 
power;  Italy  has  been  born  again,  and  promises  something 
of  its  ancient  grandeur ;  France  has  fallen  and  risen,  and  fallen 
and  again  risen  under  the  aid  and  inspiration  of  Republican 
energy  and  patriotism.  Yet  with  all  this  progress  of  all  these 
countries,  the  one  great  fact  of  the  last  hundred  years  is  that 
when  the  revolution  of  the  American  colonies  was  fought,  the 
English-speaking  people  of  the  world  were  not  17,000,000,  and 
to-day  they  are  100,000,000  in  number. 

Another  fact  —  I  pray  you  will  excuse  my  reviewing  history. 
We  are  in  the  habit  of  deploring  the  hardships  of  the  men  who 
settled  New  England,  and  in  deploring  their  hardships  we 
are  in  the  habit  of  alluding  to  them  as  a  poor  and  friendless 
and  downcast  race  of  men.  They  were  any  thing  else.  They 
had  the  nerve  and  courage  to  endure  hardship.  They  were  a 
class  of  men,  the  like  of  whom  never  before  and  never  since 
emigrated  from  any  land.  They  were  men  of  intelligence  and 
learning:  they  were  men  of  property.  The  twenty-one  thou 
sand  men  that  came  to  New  England  and  settled  the  five  colo 
nies  of  Plymouth,  Massachusetts  Bay,  New  Haven,  Connecticut, 
and  Providence,  brought  with  them  according  to  authentic  his 
tory,  five  hundred  thousand  pounds  —  two  and  a  half  millions 
of  our  dollars.  Reckoning  money  as  worth  then  six  times  what 
it  is  now,  this  property  represents,  in  its  power  to  purchase,  at 


212  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

least  fifteen  millions  of  our  money  of  to-day.  Show  me  any 
other  twenty-one  thousand  emigrants  in  this  world  that  ever 
carried  fifteen  millions  of  property  with  them  —  anywhere ! 
How  few  towns  in  the  United  States  of  twenty-one  thousand 
people  to-day  represent  more  than  fifteen  millions  of  property ! 

These  Puritan  emigrants  were  men  as  I  have  already  said  of 
property  and  education  and  large  experience  in  affairs ;  they 
were  men  who  were  accomplished  in  the  literature  of  Milton 
and  Locke  and  Lightfoot ;  they  were  men  in  whose  ministry 
were  John  Robinson  and  Brewster  and  Davenport;  they  were 
men  in  whose  statesmanship  were  Cromwell  and  Hampden  and 
Pym ;  they  were  men  who,  in  all  the  great  departments  of  civil 
polity  and  in  all  the  great  features  of  personal  and  individual 
character,  led  the  van  of  the  English  race.  When  we  wonder 
at  what  has  been  done  in  New  England  we  wonder  without  due 
reflection,  for  those  men  brought  with  them  all  the  elements  of 
the  great  success  that  has  since  crowned  their  efforts.  They 
brought  one  thing  which  has  endured  well,  and  that  was  the 
belief  that  if  you  set  in  motion  a  principle  founded  on  truth,  it 
will  go  through.  [Applause.]  They  sturdily  believed,  in  the 
language  of  one  of  their  most  eloquent  men,  that  an  army  of 
principles  will  penetrate  where  an  army  of  men  cannot  enter. 
The  Rhine  cannot  stop  it  or  the  ocean  arrest  its  progress.  It 
will  march  to  the  horizon  of  the  world,  and  it  will  conquer. 
And  the  conquest  is  permanent ! 

That  this  strong  race  has  been  abused  and  reviled,  is,  of  course, 
inevitable.  You  remember  the  old  fellow  in  London,  fumbling 
with  his  watch-chain,  who  replied  to  some  one  complimenting 
him  on  its  strength,  "  Of  course  it  is  strong.  There  isn't  a  pick 
pocket  in  London  as  hasn't  taken  a  tug  at  it  in  his  day."  There 
is  hardly  any  one  outside  of  New  England  who  has  not  taken  a 
hand  in  abusing  the  Yankee  race.  I  never  heard  it  abused  in 
quite  so  eloquent  a  manner  as  by  our  friend  of  the  Central  Rail 
road  this  evening  when  speaking  for  the  West.  Assuredly 
I  agree  with  him  that  New-Engianders  ought  to  remember  the 
influence  which  the  West  has  had  upon  New  England,  and  by 
the  West  you  must  remember  New  England  means  all  of  the 
North  American  continent  outside  of  her  own  borders.  We 
are  constantly  telling  the  Western  people  how  much  New  Eng- 


ADDRESS  BEFORE  THE  NEW  ENGLAND  SOCIETY.    213 

land  has  done  for  them,  and  in  sober  truth  it  has  done  a  great 
deal.  But  let  me  frankly  acknowledge  that  the  West  has 
moulded  and  modified  and  developed  and  advanced  New  Eng 
land  in  a  degree  which  New  England  does^not  perhaps  fully 
appreciate.  Just  as  New  England  has  re-acted  upon  Old  Eng 
land,  so  the  New-Englanders  who  have  gone  West  have  re-acted 
upon  the  New-Englanders  who  have  remained  at  home.  The 
New  England  of  fifty  years  ago  of  which  our  reverend  friend, 
Dr.  Storrs,  spoke  so  eloquently,  does  not  exist  to-day.  The 
New  England  of  which  my  friend  Depew  has  spoken  of  as 
swarming  into  New  York  is  a  thing  of  the  past.  They  have 
taken  possession.  The  current  has  practically  been  equal 
ized,  and  by  action  and  re-action,  New-England  ideas,  potent 
always  in  the  West  and  throughout  the  country,  have  become 
still  more  potent  by  the  fact  that  the  original  source  of  the 
influence  has  been  largely  affected  by  the  streams  which  have 
returned  to  fructify  and  enrich  at  home. 

Another  feature.  We  forget  that  when  the  Pilgrim  Fathers 
came  to  this  country  they  left  a  state  of  affairs  in  England  which 
boded  revolution,  and  which  in  effect  wrought  out  two  revolu 
tions  before  the  English  people  achieved  the  rights  for  which 
they  were  contending.  Yet,  in  1620,  the  Pilgrim  Fathers 
planted  in  this  country  the  exact  rights  which  those  at  home 
in  England  obtained  by  the  beheading  of  Charles  I.  and  the 
expulsion  of  his  son,  James  II.,  from  the  throne.  They  brought 
with  them  the  abandonment  of  feudalism ;  they  brought  the 
abolition  of  primogeniture  ;  they  brought  the  annulment  of  the 
entail  law;  they  brought  the  destruction  of  the  privileges  of 
the  nobility ;  they  brought  and  founded  here  sixty-eight  years 
before  it  was  realized  in  England,  all  the  great  reforms  for  which 
two  bloody  revolutions  were  fought  —  revolutions  which  cost 
one  king  his  head  and  another  his  crown  in  Old  England. 

Mr.  President,  I  should  like  to  see  this  brilliant  company 
seated  at  a  typical  New  England  feast  of  the  olden  time,  —  a 
feast  spread  on  tables  that  came  over  in  the  Mayflower,  — 
you  can  find  plenty  of  them  at  home  ;  the  guests  seated  on 
chairs  that  belonged  to  John  Alden  and  Miles  Standish,  — 
and  no  well-regulated  New-England  family  is  without  a  broken 
assortment  of  them.  It  would  be  extremely  edifying  to  see  a 


214  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

feast  that  should  reproduce  as  far  as  might  be  the  harder  times 
and  the  coarser  fare  which  they  endured  in  order  that  we  might 
enjoy  the  more  bounteous  and  more  sumptuous  repast  with 
which  we  are  indulged  to-day  by  the  New  England  Society  of 
New  York  —  and  I  almost  catch  my  breath  when  I  say  the 
New  England  Society  of  New  York  —  you  do  not  know  how 
we  regard  it  in  New  England!  There  are  a  great  many  men 
in  New  England  who  aspire  to  a  seat  in  Congress,  first  in 
the  House,  and  then  in  the  Senate,  and  thence  forward  or 
backward  to  the  Cabinet,  and  then,  under  the  inspiration  of 
the  strong  air  and  the  mountain  scenery  of  Vermont  aspire 
still  higher  [turning  round  to  Mr.  Evarts  —  a  movement  which 
provoked  loud  laughter].  But  that  is  only  the  few.  The 
one  thing  which  every  boy,  as  he  grows  up  in  New  England, 
looks  forward  to  as  the  crowning  glory  of  his  life,  is  to  dine  on 
some  auspicious  day  with  the  New  England  Society  of  New 
York.  Without  this,  his  sum  of  human  happiness  is  incom 
plete.  I  have  received  your  invitation  for  many  years  past,  but 
it  has  been  my  misfortune  never  to  have  been  able  to  be  present 
until  now,  and  I  am  here  this  evening  to  acknowledge  all  the 
pleasure  I  enjoy  in  the  present,  and  to  express  my  regret  for  all 
that  I  have  missed  in  the  past !  And  while  we  are  enjoying 
this  dinner  and  complimenting  ourselves  —  or  I  am  compli 
menting  you  —  I  should  like,  Mr.  President,  to  impress  upon 
every  New-En glander,  whether  seated  at  the  primitive  table 
of  coarse  fare  or  the  modern  table  of  costly  luxury,  that  with 
one  voice  we  should  echo  the  declarations  of  our  distin 
guished  friend,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  [Mr.  Sherman], 
in  favor  of  an  honest  dollar,  and  declare  with  equal  earnestness 
our  faith  in  an  honest  ballot !  The  principles  of  our  Fathers 
demand  that  we  should  supplement  the  peaceful  and  prom 
ising  picture  drawn  by  the  eloquent  Secretary  of  State  (Mr. 
Evarts)  with  the  resolution  that  wherever  an  honest  dollar  cir 
culates,  an  honest  ballot  shall  sustain  it.  I  could  wish  that  in 
this  respect  the  habit  and  the  practice  of  the  New  England 
States  might  spread  rapidly  and  succeed  completely  through 
out  the  whole  country.  For  I  am  reminded,  with  a  citizen 
of  Massachusetts  on  one  side  of  me  and  a  native  of  Massa 
chusetts  on  the  other,  that  in  that  great  Commonwealth,  in  a 


ADDRESS  BEFORE  THE  NEW  ENGLAND  SOCIETY.     215 

hotly-contested  election,  in  which  the  passions  and  pride  and 
prejudices  of  men  were  enlisted,  there  was  a  contest  so  close 
that  the  party  in  power,  having,  as  we  would  say,  all  the 
counters  in  their  possession,  in  a  total  poll  of  more  than  one 
hundred  thousand  votes  were  beaten  by  a  majority  of  one,  — 
and  Edward  Everett  the  Whig  walked  out  and  Marcus  Morton 
the  Democrat  walked  in.  None  but  the  English-speaking  peo 
ple  have  yet  been  fully  educated  in  the  belief  that  a  majority 
of  one  is  as  good  as  a  majority  of  one  hundred  thousand,  but 
we  do  believe  it  and  we  practice  it  and  abide  by  it  in  New 
England.  I  need  not  say  that  a  majority  going  even  into  the 
millions,  if  it  be  founded  on  force  or  on  fraud,  will  never  bring 
contentment  or  peace  or  honor  or  profit  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States. 

Mr.  President,  I  thank  you  very  sincerely,  I  thank  you  all, 
gentlemen  of  the  New  England  Society,  for  the  cordiality  of 
your  welcome.  In  this  inspiring  scene,  in  this  brilliant  assem 
blage,  surrounded  with  every  thing  that  gives  comfort  and 
grace  and  elegance  to  social  life,  in  this  meeting,  protected  by 
law,  itself  representing  law,  let  me  recall  one  sad  memory,  — 
the  memory  of  those  who  in  1620  landed  on  the  Plymouth 
shore,  and  did  not  survive  the  first  year.  Of  all  the  men 
engaged  in  heroic  contests,  those  deserve  our  tenderest  remem 
brance  who,  making  all  the  sacrifice  and  enduring  all  the 
hardship,  are  not  permitted  to  enjoy  the  triumph.  Quincy  died 
before  the  first  shot  was  fired  in  the  Revolution  which  he  did 
so  much  to  create  ;  Warren  was  killed  at  the  first  clash  of  arms 
in  defense  of  the  cause  which  was  so  sacred  to  his  patriotic 
heart;  Reynolds,  rallying  his  corps  for  the  critical  battle  of 
Gettysburg,  fell  while  yet  its  fate  was  doubtful ;  McPherson, 
in  the  great  march  to  the  sea,  lost  his  life  before  the  triumphant 
close  of  that  daring  and  romantic  expedition.  For  these  and 
all  like  unto  them,  from  Plymouth  Rock  to  the  last  battle 
field  of  the  civil  war,  who  perished  in  their  pride,  and  perished 
before  they  could  know  that  they  were  dying  not  in  vain  but 
for  a  cause  destined  to  victory,  I  offer,  and  I  am  sure  you  will 
join  with  me  in  offering,  our  veneration  and  our  homage  J 


216  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION  TO   THE  PACIFIC  SLOPE. 


[The  question  of  abrogating  so  much  of  the  Burlingame  Treaty  as  permitted 
the  free  immigration  of  Chinese  was  before  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  in 
February,  1879.  On  the  14th  of  that  month  Mr.  Blaine  addressed  the  Senate  as 
follows :  —  ] 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  In  the  remarks  made  yesterday  by  the 
honorable  senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Matthews]  he  intimated,  if 
he  did  not  directly  assert,  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  had  solicited  from  the  Chinese  Empire  the  treaty  now 
under  consideration.  The  statement  is  I  think,  though  of 
course  not  so  intended,  the  exact  reverse  of  the  historic  fact. 
What  is  known  as  the  Reed  Treaty  had  given  to  the  merchants 
of  the  United  States,  and  to  all  who  desired  to  trade  in  China, 
the  facilities  they  desired.  The  Burlingame  Treaty  involving 
other  points  was  certainly  asked  from  the  United  States  in  the 
most  impressive  manner  by  a  Chinese  embassy.  The  eminent, 
gentleman  who  had  gone  to  China  as  our  minister,  had  trans 
ferred  his  services  to  the  Chinese  Empire,  and  returning  to 
us  with  great  prestige  at  the  head  of  a  special  embassy  from 
China,  with  a  great  number  of  friends  at  home,  was  able  to  do 
what  perhaps  no  other  man  then  living  could  have  done  for 
China.  He  was  often  spoken  of  during  his  lifetime  as  merely 
a  stump  speaker.  He  has  been  ten  years  in  his  grave  ;  and  I 
desire,  now  that  his  name  is  before  us,  to  refer  to  him  as  a 
man  of  great  address  and  great  ability,  a  man  who  showed  his 
power  by  the  commanding  position  which  he  acquired  in  the 
Chinese  Empire  and  by  the  influence  which  he  exerted  in  his 
own  country  in  its  relations  to  China. 

This  subject  divides  itself  naturally  into  two  parts,  one  of 
form  and  one  of  substance.  The  one  of  form  is  whether  we 
may  rightfully  adopt  this  mode  of  terminating  the  treaty. 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION.  217 

The  second  and  graver  question  is  whether  it  is  desirable  to 
exclude  Chinese  immigration  from  this  country.  I  noticed 
that  the  senator  from  Ohio  yesterday  in  discussing  the  first  of 
these  questions  called  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  gravity 
of  the  obligation  which  exists  between  the  two  countries,  but 
he  stopped  reading  at  a  very  significant  point.  He  read  the 
following  paragraph  or  part  of  a  paragraph  from  the  fifth  article 
of  the  treaty  :  — 

"  The  United  States  of  America  and  the  Emperor  of  China  cordially 
recognize  the  inherent  and  inalienable  right  of  man  to  change  his  home  and 
allegiance,  and  also  the  mutual  advantage  of  the  free  migration  and  emigra 
tion  of  their  citizens  and  subjects,  respectively,  from  the  one  country  to  the 
other,  for  purposes  of  curiosity,  of  trade,  or  as  permanent  residents." 

Here  the  honorable  senator  from  Ohio  stopped,  and  it  was 
well  for  his  argument  that  he  did,  for  directly  .after  the  words 
that  he  read  are  the  following  :  — 

"  The  high  contracting  parties,  therefore,  join  in  reprobating  any  other 
than  an  entirely  voluntary  emigration  for  these  purposes.  They  consequently 
agree  to  pass  laws  making  it  a  penal  offense  for  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States  or  Chinese  subjects  to  take  Chinese  subjects  either  to  the  United 
States  or  to  nay  other  foreign  country,  or  for  a  Chinese  subject  or  citizen  of 
the  United  States  to  take  citizens  of  the  United  States  to  China  or  to  any 
other  foreign  country  without  their  free  and  voluntary  consent  respectively." 

I  maintain  that  the  latter  clause  of  the  treaty  has  been  per 
sistently  violated  by  China  from  the  hour  it  was  made.  In  the 
sense  in  which  we  receive  immigration  from  Europe  not  one 
Chinese  immigrant  has  ever  come  to  these  shores.  The  qualify 
ing  words  were  understood  at  the  time  to  have  been  penned  by 
Mr.  Seward.  They  are  worth  repeating ;  and  as  my  honorable 
friend  from  Ohio  did  not  read  them  yesterday,  I  will  read 
them  again  in  his  hearing :  — 

"  The  high  contracting  parties,  therefore,  join  in  reprobating  any  other 
than  an  entirely  voluntary  emigration  for  these  purposes." 

The  words  are  worth  emphasizing  ;  not  merely  "  voluntary," 
it  must  be  "  entirely  voluntary,"  and  then  each  nation  is  to 
make  laws  to  secure  this  end.  I  am  informed  by  those  who 
are  more  familiar  with  this  subject  than  I  am,  that  no  notice 
has  been  received  at  the  State  Department  showing  that  China 
has  ever  complied  with  that  provision  of  the  treaty  requiring 


218  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

her  to  make  laws  regulating  emigration.  Still  less  has  she 
attempted  to  enforce  a  law  on  the  subject.  The  mere  mak 
ing  of  a  law  and  not  enforcing  it  would  be  no  compliance 
with  the  treaty.  The  Chinese  agree,  in  other  words,  to  enforce 
the  provision  that  there  should  be  nothing  else  than  "voluntary  " 
emigration,  an  "  entirely  voluntary "  emigration.  They  have 
never  done  as  they  agreed,  they  have  been  absolutely  faithless 
on  that  point. 

The  treaty  stands  as  broken  and  defied  by  China  from  the 
hour  it  was  made  to  this  time.  Its  terms  have  never  been 
complied  with.  We  have  been  compelled  to  legislate  against 
it.  We  legislated  against  it  in  the  Cooly  law.  The  Chinese 
were  so  flagrantly  violating  it  that  statutes  of  the  United  States 
were  enacted  to  contravene  the  evil  the  Chinese  were  doing. 
The  evil  has  gone  on,  probably  not  so  grossly  since  these  laws 
were  passed  as  before,  but  in  effect  the  same.  The  point  which 
the  senator  makes  in  regard  to  our  Punic  faith  in  attempting 
to  break  this  treaty,  is  therefore  answered  by  the  fact  that  the 
treaty  has  been  broken  continuously  by  the  other  power. 

The  senator  from  Ohio  asked  what  we  should  do  in  a  similar 
case  if  the  other  contracting  party  were  Great  Britain  or  Ger 
many  or  France  or  any  power  that  was  able  to  make  war.  I 
ask  the  honorable  senator  what  he  would  advise  us  to  do  if 
Great  Britain  or  France  or  Germany  should  locate  six  commer 
cial  companies  in  New  York,  wrhose  business  it  should  be  to 
bring  to  this  country  the  worst  class  and  the  lowest  class 
of  the  population  of  those  three  kingdoms  ?  What  would  the 
honorable  senator  from  Ohio  say  to  that?  or  does  he  hesitate  to 
declare  what  we  should  say  to  it  ? 

Mr.  MATTHEWS.     Does  the  senator  desire  an  answer? 

Mr.  BLAINE.     Yes,  if  the  senator  pleases. 

Mr.  MATTHEWS.  Then,  Mr.  President,  I  would  say  this, 
that  instead  of  inaugurating  an  arbitrary  and  ex  parte  act  of 
legislation  on  our  own  part,  giving  our  own  construction  to  the 
treaty  and  the  conduct  of  the  other  party  under  it,  I  would, 
through  the  usual  diplomatic  representative  of  this  countr}7-, 
make  representations  to  that  Government  making  complaints 
of  the  alleged  breach  of  the  treaty,  and  ask  what  answer  could 
be  made  to  that ;  and  only  in  the  event,  as  a  last  resort,  of  a 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION.  219 

contumacious  refusal  to  obey  the  plain  requisitions  of  the  treaty 
obligation,  would  I  resort  to  a  repudiation  of  our  own  obliga 
tions  under  it. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Ah !  I  asked  him  what  he  would  do  in  case 
the  contracting  parties  had  themselves  broken  the  treaty  and 
we  were  the  victims  of  the  breach.  He  answers  me  that  he 
would  take  hat  in  hand  and  bow  politely  before  them,  and  ask 
them  if  they  would  not  behave  better  !  What  are  we  to  do  as 
a  measure  of  self-defense  when  they  have  broken  it,  and  taken 
the  initiative  ?  I  say  that  this  country  and  this  Senate  would 
not  hesitate  to  call  any  European  power  to  account.  The  argu 
ment  the  senator  meant  to  employ  was  that  we  were  doing 
toward  a  helpless  power,  not  able  to  make  war  against  us, 
that  which  we  would  not  do  if  a  cannon  were  pointed  toward 
us  by  a  strong  power.  Does  the  senator  doubt  that  if  any  one 
of  these  countries  should  locate  six  commercial  companies  here 
to  import  the  worst  portion  of  their  population  and  put  it  upon 
our  shores  (and  you  cannot  find  so  bad  a  population  in  all 
Europe  as  that  of  which  I  am  speaking),  that  we  would  hesitate 
in  our  course  towards  the  offending  power  ? 

In  regard  to  this  treaty,  the  senator  says  we  should  give 
notice.  It  has  been  stated  many  times  in  the  hearing  of  the 
Senate,  that  nearly  one  year  ago  we  called  the  attention  of  the 
Executive  to  this  matter.  Certainly  it  must  be  the  presump 
tion  of  Congress  that  the  President  did  his  duty  in  the  prem 
ises.  It  is  not  for  any  senator  here  to  speak  of  what  he  has 
done  or  what  he  has  not  done.  The  presumption  is  that  all 
departments  have  done  their  duty ;  and  the  plain  duty  of  the 
Executive  was  to  bring  this  resolution  by  way  of  notice  to  the 
attention  of  the  Chinese  Government.  There  is  another  fea 
ture  to  which  I  beg  the  honorable  senator  from  Ohio  to  direct 
his  attention.  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  book  which  contains  all  the 
treaties  which  have  been  made  by  the  United  States  with  for 
eign  powers  from  the  organization  of  the  Government  to  the 
year  1873.  The  treaties  are  about  two  hundred  and  thirty  in 
number,  I  think  ;  about  one-half  of  them  with  European  powers, 
the  remainder  with  South  American,  Central  American,  Mexi 
can,  Asiatic,  and  African  countries.  I  believe  I  could  say, 
although  I  am  a  little  modest  about  universal  affirmations,  I 


220  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

believe  it  is  almost  true  as  a  universal  affirmation,  that  you 
cannot  find,  with  the  exception  of  the  Burlingame  Treaty,  any 
one  in  that  whole  list  relating  to  a  commercial  connection,  which 
does  not  either  terminate  itself  by  a  certain  date  or  provide 
the  mode  of  its  termination.  Almost  all  of  them  have  a  given 
date  upon  which  they  expire.  Some  of  them  have  a  time  within 
which  either  party  may  give  notice,  but  there  is  a  clause  in 
almost  every  one  of  them  providing  that  by  a  certain  process 
either  country  may  free  itself  from  the  obligations  that  it 
assumed.  The  Burlingame  Treaty  is  peculiar ;  it  relates  to  a 
commercial  and  personal  connection  of  trade  and  of  emigration, 
but  it  does  not  say  that  it  shall  last  ten  years  or  twenty  years, 
or  any  other  period ;  it  is  interminable  in  its  provisions ;  it 
does  not  provide  that  we  shall  give  notice  in  a  certain  way, 
or  that  China  shall  give  notice  in  a  certain  way.  There  is  no 
provision  in  the  world  by  which  it  can  be  terminated  unless  one 
of  the  parties  shall  take  the  initiative,  as  is  now  proposed. 

It  is,  "  I  repeat,"  evident  that  one  party  or  the  other  must 
take  the  initiative.  The  senator  from  Ohio  says  he  would  go  to 
the  Emperor  and  make  certain  representations.  Then  I  ask  the 
honorable  senator,  Suppose  the  Emperor  should  refuse,  what 
would  he  do?  Suppose  the  Emperor  should  say,  "You  have 
entered  into  a  treaty  with  my  Government  for  all  time ;  its 
very  terms  show  that  there  was  to  be  no  limit  to  it."  I  ask 
the  honorable  senator  from  Ohio  what  he  would  then  do  ? 
Suppose  we  are  unanimously  of  opinion  here  that  the  treaty 
ought  not  to  continue,  what  would  the  honorable  senator  do  in 
case  the  Emperor  should  say,  "  I  desire  to  stand  by  that 
treaty  "  ?  What  then  ? 

Mr.  MATTHEWS.     Does  the  senator  wish  an  answer  ? 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Yes,  if  it  be  agreeable  to  the  honorable  senator 
from  Ohio. 

Mr.  MATTHEWS.  I  should  take  it  into  consideration.  [Laugh 
ter.] 

Mr.  BLAINE.  That  is  a  very  exact  and  executive  way  of 
doing  things.  The  honorable  senator  would  consider.  That 
is  just  about  as  definite  a  point  as  I  supposed  the  sena 
tor  would  come  to.  If  the  Senate  unanimously  determine 
that  this  treaty  ought  to  be  ended  and  we  send  an  embassy, 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION.  221 

as  he  suggests,  to  the  Emperor  and  the  Emperor  says,  "  No, 
I  think  it  ought  not  to  be  ended,"  the  senator  says  he  would 
come  back  and  sit  down  and  take  it  into  serious  considera 
tion. 

The  learned  senator  from  Ohio,  eminent  in  the  law  as  he  is 
known  to  be,  read  us  a  lesson  upon  the  great  obligations  that 
rest  upon  us  as  a  nation  of  honorable  people,  as  if  indeed 
we  were  about  to  do  something  in  the  way  of  terminating  a 
treaty  that  would  give  us  a  bad  name  and  fame  among  the 
nations  of  the  earth. 

In  answer  to  the  honorable  senator,  without  attempting  to 
defend  all  that  has  been  done  by  various  nations  in  regard 
to  the  termination  of  treaties,  let  me  say  that  it  has  been  the 
usual  habit  and  is  laid  down  in  the  very  principia  of  the  law 
of  nations  (which  I  need  not  quote),  that  when  a  people  find  a 
treaty  "pernicious  to  the  nation,"  —  the  very  words  of  Vattel, 
—  they  may  terminate  it.  We  took  advantage  of  this  French 
authority  on  a  very  memorable  occasion.  The  treaty  which  we 
made  with  France  in  1778,  a  treaty  that  was  considered  to  be 
the  origin  of  our  strength  in  the  Revolutionary  war,  contained 
this  article :  — 

"  Neither  of  the  two  parties  shall  conclude  either  truce  or  peace  with 
Great  Britain  without  the  formal  consent  of  the  other,  first  obtained." 

The  French  afterward  said  that  the  Americans,  without  giv 
ing  them  the  slightest  notice,  "  stealthily  precipitated  "  a  peace, 
and  left  them  open  either  to  war  or  negotiation ;  and  when  we 
were  accused  of  it,  we  quoted  their  own  author  and  replied  that 
this  action  was  absolutely  essential  to  the  life  of  our  young 
Nation.  We  were  compelled  to  do  it,  and  we  did  it.  Self- 
preservation  is  the  first  law  of  nations,  as  well  as  of  nature, 
and  we  resorted  to  it. 

I  proceed,  Mr.  President,  to  the  second  branch  of  my  sub 
ject.  The  Chinese  question  is  not  new  in  this  body.  We  have 
had  it  here  very  often,  and  have  had  it  here  in  important  rela 
tions,  and  I  wish  to  lay  down  this  principle,  that,  so  far  as  my 
vote  is  concerned,  I  will  not  admit  a  man  by  immigration  to 
this  country  whom  I  am  not  willing  to  place  on  the  basis  of  a 
citizen.  Let  me  repeat  that  we  ought  not  to  permit  in  this 


222  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

country  of  universal  suffrage  the  immigration  of  a  great  people, 
great  in  numbers,  whom  we  ourselves  declare  to  be  utterly 
unfit  for  citizenship. 

What  do  we  say  on  that  point  ?  In  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  on  the  fourth  day  of  July,  1870,  a  patriotic  day,  we  were 
amending  the  naturalization  laws.  We  had  practically  made 
all  the  negroes  of  the  United  States  voters ;  at  least  we  had 
said  they  should  not  be  deprived  of  suffrage  by  reason  of  race 
or  color.  We  had  admitted  them  all,  and  we  then  amended  the 
naturalization  laws  so  that  the  emigrant  from  Africa  could  be 
come  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  Then  Senator  Trumbull 
moved  to  add  :  — 

"  Or  persons  born  in  the  Chinese  Empire." 

He  said :  — 

"  I  have  offered  this  amendment  so  as  to  bring  the  distinct  question  before 
the  Senate,  whether  they  will  vote  to  naturalize  persons  from  Africa,  and 
vote  to  refuse  to  naturalize  those  who  come  from  China.  I  ask  for  the  yeas 
and  nays  on  my  amendment." 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  as  follows  on  the  question  of  whether 
we  would  ever  admit  a  Chinaman  to  become  an  American  citi 
zen.  The  yeas  were  :  — 

"Messrs.  Fenton,  Fowler,  McDonald,  Pomeroy,  Rice,  Robertson,  Sprague, 
Sumner,  and  Trumbull.  —  9." 

The  nays  were :  — 

**  Messrs.  Bayard,  Boreman,  Chandler,  Conkling,  Corbett,  Cragin,  Drake, 
Gilbert,  Hamilton  of  Maryland,  Hamlin,  Harlan,  Howe,  McCreery,  Morrill 
of  Vermont,  Morton,  Nye,  Osborn,  Ramsey,  Saulsbury,  Sawyer,  Scott, 
Stewart,  Stockton,  Thayer,  Thurman,  Tipton,  Vickers,  Warner,  Willey, 
Williams,  and  Wilson.— 31." 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  vote  was  thirty-one  against 
nine  in  a  Senate  three-fourths  Republican,  declaring  that  the 
Chinaman  never  ought  to  be  made  a  citizen.  I  think  this  set 
tles  the  whole  question,  if  the  position  assumed  by  that  vote 
was  a  correct  one,  because  in  our  system  of  Government  as  it 
is  to-day  you  cannot,  with  safety  to  all,  permit  a  large  immi 
gration  of  people  who  are  not  to  be  made  citizens.  The  senator 
from  California  [Mr.  Sargent]  tells  us  that  already  the  male 
adult  Chinese  in  California  are  as  numerous  as  the  white 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION.  223 

voters.  I  take  him  as  an  authority  from  his  own  State,  as  I 
should  expect  him  to  take  my  statement  as  authority  about  my 
own  State. 

It  seems  to  me  that  if  we  adopt  as  a  permanent  policy  the 
free  immigration  of  those  who,  by  overwhelming  votes  in  both 
branches  of  Congress  must  forever  remain  political  and  social 
pariahs  in  a  great  free  Government,  we  have  introduced  an 
element  that  we  cannot  control.  We  cannot  stop  where  we 
are.  We  are  compelled  to  do  one  of  two  things  —  either  ex 
clude  the  immigration  of  Chinese  or  if  we  admit  them,  include 
them  in  the  great  family  of  citizens. 

The  argument  is  often  put  forward  that  there  is  no  special 
danger  that  large  numbers  of  Chinese  will  come  here ;  that  it 
is  not  a  practical  question  ;  and  as  the  honorable  senator  from 
Ohio  is  free  to  answer,  I  ask  him  if  the  number  should  mount 
up  into  the  millions,  what  would  be  his  view? 

Mr.  MATTHEWS.  The  senator  seems  to  expect  a  reply  to  his 
inquiry.  I  would  say  that  when  there  was  a  reasonable  appre 
hension  by  the  United  States  of  the  immigration  mounting  up 
to  such  numbers,  then  I  would  take  that  into  consideration. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Take  that  into  consideration  also  !  The  sena 
tor  is  definite  I  If  the  Chinese  should  amount  to  millions  in 
the  population  of  the  Pacific  slope,  he  would  begin  to  take  it 
into  consideration !  That  is  practical  legislation  !  That  is 
legislating  for  an  evil  which  is  upon  us  to-day  !  The  senator's 
statesmanship  is  certainly  of  a  considerate  kind. 

A  word  now  about  the  question  of  numbers.  Did  it  ever 
occur  to  my  honorable  friend  from  Ohio  that  the  large  numbers, 
the  incalculable  hordes  in  China,  are  much  nearer  to  the  Pacific 
coast  of  the  United  States,  in  point  of  money  and  transit,  in 
point  of  expense  of  reaching  it,  than  the  people  of  Kansas  ?  A 
man  in  Shanghai  or  Hong-Kong  can  be  delivered  at  San  Fran 
cisco  more  cheaply  than  a  man  in  Omaha.  I  do  not  speak  of 
the  Atlantic  coast,  where  the  population  is  still  more  remote ; 
but  you  may  take  the  Mississippi  Valley,  Illinois,  Iowa,  Ne 
braska,  Kansas,  Missouri,  all  the  great  commonwealths  of  that 
valley,  and  they  are,  in  point  of  expense,  farther  off  from  the 
Pacific  slope  than  the  population  of  China  and  Japan. 

I  am  told  by  those  who   are  familiar  with  the   commercial 


224  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

affairs  of  the  Pacific  slope  that  a  person  can  be  sent  from  any  of 
the  great  Chinese  ports  to  San  Francisco  for  about  thirty  dol 
lars.  I  suppose  in  an  emigrant  train  over  the  Pacific  Railroad 
from  Omaha,  not  to  speak  of  the  expense  of  reaching  Omaha, 
but  from  that  point  alone,  it  would  cost  fifty  dollars  per  head. 
So  that  in  point  of  cheap  transportation  to  California  the 
Chinaman  to-day  has  an  advantage  over  an  American  laborer  in 
any  part  of  the  country,  except  in  the  case  of  those  who  are 
already  on  the  Pacific  coast. 

Ought  we  to  exclude  them?  The  question  lies  in  my  mind 
thus :  Either  the  Caucasian  race  will  possess  the  Pacific  slope  or 
the  Mongolian  race  will  possess  it.  Give  Mongolians  the  start 
to-day,  with  the  keen  thrust  of  necessity  behind  them,  and  with 
the  ease  of  transportation  and  the  inducement  of  higher  wages 
before  them,  and  it  is  entirely  probable  if  not  demonstrable 
that  while  we  are  filling  up  the  other  portions  of  the  continent, 
they  will  occupy  the  great  space  of  country  between  the  Sierras 
and  the  Pacific  coast.  The  Chinese  are  themselves  to-day  estab 
lishing  steamship  lines;  they  are  themselves  to-day  providing 
the  means  of  transportation ;  and  when  gentlemen  say  that  we 
admit  from  all  other  countries,  where  do  you  find  the  slightest 
parallel?  In  a  Republic  especially,  in  any  Government  that 
maintains  itself,  the  unit  of  order  and  of  administration  is  in  the 
family.  The  emigrants  that  come  to  us  from  all  portions  of 
the  British  Isles,  from  Germany,  from  Norway,  from  Denmark, 
from  France,  from  Spain,  from  Italy,  come  here  with  the  idea  of 
the  family  as  much  engraven  on  their  minds  and  on  their  cus 
toms  and  habits  as  ours.  The  Asiatic  cannot  live  with  our 
population  and  make  a  homogeneous  element.  The  idea  of 
comparing  European  immigration  with  an  immigration  that  has 
no  regard  to  family,  that  does  not  recognize  the  relation  of  hus 
band  and  wife,  that  does  not  observe  the  tie  of  parent  and  child, 
that  does  not  feel  in  the  slightest  degree  the  humanizing  and 
the  ennobling  influences  of  the  hearth-stone  and  the  fireside ! 
When  gentlemen  talk  loosely  about  emigration  from  European 
countries  as  contrasted  with  that,  they  certainly  are  forgetting 
history  and  forgetting  themselves. 

My  honorable  colleague  [Mr.  Hamlin]  and  the  senator  from 
Wisconsin  [Mr.  Howe]  voted  that  the  Chinaman  ought  not  to 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION.  225 

be  a  citizen  of  this  country,  voted  that  he  ought  not  to  become 
a  voter  in  this  country.  My  honorable  friend  from  Wisconsin 
now  says,  sotto  voce,  that  he  did  not  vote  that  the  Chinaman 
never  should  be  enfranchised ;  but  he  is  like  the  honorable  sena 
tor  from  Ohio ;  he  voted  "  no,"  and  then  proceeded  to  take  the 
question  "into  consideration" — leisurely,  and  he  has  been 
leisurely  considering  it  for  ten  years.  When  the  question  was 
before  us,  whether  the  Chinaman  should  be  a  subject  of  natu 
ralization,  the  senator  from  Wisconsin  said  "  no,"  and  he  said 
"no  "at  a  time  when  he  said  the  negro  directly  from  Africa 
might  come  in  and  be  naturalized.  He  said  "  no  "  at  a  time 
when  every  other  immigrant  from  every  portion  of  the  habitable 
globe  was  the  subject  of  naturalization.  I  think  the  Chinaman 
in  California,  if  he  is  to  be  forced  upon  us  in  great  numbers, 
would  be  safer  as  a  voter,  dangerous  as  that  would  be,  than  as 
a  political  pariah. 

Mr.  HOWE.     Why  not  apply  that  remedy  ? 

Mr.  ELAINE.  You  do  not  remedy  one  evil  by  precipitating 
another  evil.  I  wish  to  remove  both.  You  only  present  me 
another  evil.  I  am  opposed  to  the  Chinese  coming  here  ;  I  am 
opposed  to  making  them  citizens ;  I  am  opposed  to  making  them 
voters.  But  the  senator  from  Wisconsin  must  contemplate 
the  fact  that  with  the  ordinary  immigration  now  going  on,  if 
the  statistics  given  by  the  honorable  senator  from  California 
are  correct,  we  shall  soon  have  a  large  majority  of  the  male 
adults  of  California  non-voters ;  and  with  the  Republic  organ 
ized  as  it  is  to-day,  I  do  not  believe  that  you  can  maintain  a 
non-voting  class  in  this  country.  Negro  suffrage  was  a  neces 
sity.  Abused  as  suffrage  has  been  in  the  South,  curtailed 
unfairly,  it  is  still  the  shield  and  defense  of  that  race ;  and 
with  all  its  imperfections  and  all  its  abuses  and  all  its  short 
comings  by  reason  of  his  own  ignorance  or  by  the  tyranny 
of  others,  the  suffrage  of  the  negro  has  wrought  out,  or  has 
pointed  the  way  by  which  shall  be  wrought  out,  his  personal 
liberty,  his  political  salvation. 

I  have  talked  with  a  great  many  gentlemen  on  the  opposite 
side  of  this  question,  and  I  never  yet  have  seen  one  who  did 
not,  like  the  honorable  senator  from  Ohio,  desire  to  escape 
present  responsibility,  and  take  the  subject  into  consideration 


226  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

when  it  came  to  the  point  of  how  far  this  immigration  shall  be 
permitted  to  go?  The  honorable  senator  declined  to  tell  me 
where  he  would  limit  it.  I  have  never  yet  found  any  one  who 
would  say  that  he  would  allow  it  to  be  illimitable.  I  have 
never  yet  found  an  advocate  of  Chinese  immigration,  who  was 
willing  to  name  a  point  where  he  would  fix  it  and  restrain 
it.  Is  there  any  senator  on  this  floor  —  and  I  ask  to  be 
answered  if  there  is  —  who  will  say  that  under  the  operation 
of  the  Burlingame  Treaty,  as  it  is  now  administered,  he  is 
willing  that  the  Chinese  should  come  in  and  occupy  the  three 
Pacific  States  to  the  exclusion  of  the  whites  ?  I  will  repeat  my 
question  in  another  form :  Should  we  be  justified  in  sitting  still 
here  in  the  administration  of  this  Government  and  permitting 
this  treaty  to  remain  in  force  and  the  immigration  which  it 
allows,  to  go  forward  until  those  three  States  of  the  Pacific  side 
should  be  overridden  by  that  population  ?  That  is  what  I  ask 
every  senator. 

Mr.  HAMLIN.  If  my  colleague  wants  an  answer,  I  will  give 
him  one  for  myself.  I  will  come  a  little  nearer  my  colleague 
than  the  senator  from  Ohio  ;  I  will  take  it  into  consideration 
now.  I  will  meet  every  question  as  it  shall  arise,  and  I  will 
state  to  my  colleague  how  I  would  meet  it  when  it  shall  arise. 
It  has  not  arisen  now.  When  the  time  shall  come  that  I  become 
satisfied  that  the  population  of  China  will  overrun  our  country, 
and  there  shall  be  danger  or  imminent  peril  from  that  immigra 
tion,  I  will  join  with  my  colleague  in  abrogating  all  treaties 
with  them ;  not  one  single  little  paragraph  of  a  treaty,  while 
we  ask  them  to  maintain  it  in  its  integrity  for  all  the  commer 
cial  advantages  that  the  treaty  bestows  upon  us,  and  all  the 
protection  that  that  treaty  gives  us  to  the  right  of  trial  by  jury 
under  our  own  laws.  I  will  not  meet  it  by  an  attempt  to  abro 
gate  a  treaty  upon  a  little  point,  while  we  are  the  beneficiaries 
in  the  great  and  substantial  points.  I  am  indifferent  to  all 
the  danger  that  shall  come  away  down  into  the  stillness  of 
ages  from  the  immigration  of  the  Chinese.  Treat  them,  I  will 
not  say  like  pagans,  because  Confucius  would  shame  us  if 
we  go  to  his  counsel  —  treat  them  like  Christians,  and  they 
will  become  good  American  citizens.  [Applause  in  the  gal 
leries.] 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION.  227 

Mr.  ELAINE.  But  my  colleague  voted  that  they  should  not 
become  American  citizens. 

Mr.  HAMLIN.  I  do  not  want  to  interrupt  my  colleague,  but 
I  will  state  before  the  debate  shall  close,  the  reasons  which  were 
satisfactory  to  my  mind  for  my  vote  then,  and  I  am  half  inclined 
to  believe  that  I  will  so  state  them  that  my  colleague  himself 
will  see  that  I  then  voted  right. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  I  would  have  voted  with  my  colleague  on 
that  question,  as  I  have  already  stated. 

Mr.  SARGENT.  Will  the  senator  from  Maine  [Mr.  Elaine] 
allow  me  to  justify  a  statement  he  has  made  ?  I  will  take  but 
a  moment.  I  understood  his  colleague  [Mr.  Hamlin]  to  say 
that  the  average  importation  of  Chinese  during  the  last  twenty 
years  had  been  four  thousand  a  year. 

Mr.  HAMLIN.  Between  four  and  five  thousand.  I  think  it 
is  utterly  impossible  to  state  with  precise  accuracy  what  is  the 
number  of  Chinese  in  this  country  at  this  time.  I  think,  how 
ever,  it  can  be  approximated  very  closely.  The  senator  from 
California  has  stated  the  basis  of  his  conclusions.  Now  I  will 
give  from  the  Alta  Californian  Almanac,  published  in  San 
Francisco,  the  calculation,  and  I  will  read  it  to  the  Senate.  It 
may  be  they  have  made  an  under-estimate,  but  they  would  not 
be  very  likely  to  do  it  in  that  community. 

Mr.  SARGENT.  That  paper  is  very  strongly  pro-Chinese,  and 
the  only  one  on  the  Pacific  coast. 

Mr.  HAMLIN.  The  only  one  !  I  think  there  are  five  in  the 
city  of  San  Francisco  which  favor  the  immigration  of  Chinese. 
I  have  two  or  three  of  them  here.  In  thirty  years,  according 
to  the  official  report,  the  gain  in  the  arrivals  over  departures 
has  been  130,863,  or  at  the  rate  of  4,662  per  annum.  The 
deaths,  according  to  the  Alta  Almanac,  page  43,  number  about 
20  for  every  1,000  per  annum ;  but  taking  the  largest  number 
given  for  arrivals,  233,000,  and  taking  the  official  figure  of 
returns,  93,000,  and  deaths  of  20  in  every  1,000  per  annum, 
and  you  have  128,000  deducted  from  the  233,000,  leaving  the 
number  on  this  continent  at  the  present  time  the  enormous 
number  of  about  100,000 !  The  Alta  Almanac  further  gives, 
on  page  43,  the  number  in  California  at  78,000,  while  I  under 
stand  the  official  record  of  the  Chinese  themselves  places  the 


228  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

number  in  California  at  but  60,000.  Now,  I  say  to  my  col 
league,  it  was  upon  that  information  that  I  said  the  arrivals 
beyond  the  departures  had  been  between  four  and  five 
thousand. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Still  the  wonder  grows  with  me  that  if  the 
aggregate  immigration  is  so  small  and  will  remain  so  small,  as 
my  colleague  states,  he  should  still  have  thought  and  have 
voted  that  they  ought  not  to  be  citizens,  and  could  not  be 
safely  trusted  with  the  elective  franchise.  All  that  my  honor 
able  colleague  has  said  makes  me  wonder  still  more  at  that 
vote,  although,  as  I  state,  I  would  have  given  the  same  vote 
with  him ;  but  I  would  have  given  it  on  entirely  different  con 
siderations  and  with  an  entirely  different  view.  I  am  sure, 
even  if  I  repeat  myself  in  so  saying,  that  no  gentleman  can 
justify  an  indefinite  immigration  from  China  who  is  not  willing 
to  assume  and  justify  all  the  responsibilities  of  making  the 
immigrants  citizens  of  the  United  States,  because  we  cannot 
continue  to  expose  the  Pacific  coast  to  that  immigration  with 
a  non-voting  class  largely  outnumbering  the  voting  class. 

The  senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Matthews]  made  light  of  the 
race  trouble.  I  supposed  if  there  be  any  part  of  the  w^orld  where 
a  man  would  not  make  light  of  a  race  trouble  it  was  the 
United  States.  I  supposed  if  there  were  any  people  in  the  world 
that  had  a  race  trouble  on  hand  it  w^as  the  American  people. 
I  supposed  if  the  admonitions  of  our  own  history  were  any 
thing  to  us,  we  should  regard  the  race  trouble  as  the  one  thing 
to  be  dreaded,  the  one  thing  to  be  avoided.  We  are  not 
through  with  it  yet.  It  has  cost  us  a  great  many  lives ;  it  has 
cost  us  a  great  many  millions  of  treasure.  Does  any  man  feel 
that  we  are  safely  through  with  it  now  ?  Does  any  man  here 
to-day  assume  that  we  have  so  entirely  solved  and  settled  all 
the  troubles  growing  out  of  the  negro-race  trouble  that  we  are 
prepared  to  invite  a  similar  one  ?  If  so,  he  learns  a  lesson  from 
history  which  I  have  not  been  taught.  If  any  gentleman,  look 
ing  into  the  future  of  this  country,  sees,  for  certain  sections 
of  it  at  least,  peace  and  good  order  and  absolute  freedom  from 
any  trouble  growing  out  of  race,  he  sees  with  more  sanguine 
vision  than  mine.  With  this  trouble  already  upon  us,  it  would, 
in  my  judgment,  be  the  last  degree  of  recklessness  deliberately 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION.  229 

to  invite  or  permit  another  and  possibly  a  far  more  serious  one 
to  be  thrust  upon  us. 

Treat  them  like  Christians,  my  colleague  says ;  and  yet  I  be 
lieve  the  Christian  testimony  from  the  Pacific  coast  is  that  the 
conversion  of  Chinese  is  largely  a  failure ;  that  the  demoraliza 
tion  of  the  white  race  is  a  much  more  rapid  result  of  the  contact 
than  the  conversion  of  the  Chinese  race,  and  that  up  to  this 
time  there  has  been  little  progress  made  in  the  one  direction 
while  much  evil  has  been  done  in  the  other.  I  heard  the 
honorable  senator  from  California  who  sits  on  this  side  of  the 
Chamber  [Mr.  Booth]  say  that  there  is  not,  as  we  under 
stand  it,  in  all  the  one  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  Chinese 
(whether  I  state  the  exact  number  does  not  matter  in  this 
point  of  view),  there  does  not  exist  among  the  whole  of  them 
the  relation  of  family.  There  is  not  a  peasant's  cottage  in 
habited  by  a  Chinaman ;  there  is  not  a  hearth-stone,  as  it 
is  found  and  cherished  in  an  American  home,  or  an  English 
home,  or  a  German  home,  or  a  French  home.  There  is  not  a 
domestic  fireside  in  that  sense ;  and  yet  you  say  that  it  is  en 
tirely  safe  to  sit  down  and  quietly  permit  that  mode  of  life  to 
be  fastened  upon  our  country.  A  half-century  ago  this  ques 
tion  could  not  have  been  made  a  practical  one.  Means  of 
communication,  ease  of  access,  cheapness  of  transportation, 
have  changed  the  issue,  and  forced  it  upon  our  attention.  I 
believe  now  that  if  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  should 
in  effect  confirm  the  treaty  and  the  status  of  immigration  as 
it  now  is,  law  and  order  could  not  be  maintained  in  California 
without  the  interposition  of  the  military  five  years  hence.  Do 
I  overstate  that? 

Mr.  SARGENT.  I  am  sorry  to  say  that  I  think  the  senator 
does  not  overstate  it. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  I  do  not  justify  the  brutality  of  the  treatment 
of  those  Chinese  who  are  here.  That  is  greatly  to  be  regretted 
and  greatly  to  be  condemned.  But  you  must  deal  with  things 
as  you  find  them.  If  you  foresee  a  conflict  upon  that  coast  by 
reason  of  an  immigration  that  calls  for  the  interposition  of  the 
military,  I  think  it  is  a  great  deal  wiser  and  more  direct  way 
to  avoid  the  trouble  by  preventing  the  immigration. 

I  have  heard  much  of  late  about  their  cheap  labor.     I  do  not 


230  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

myself  believe  in  cheap  labor.  I  do  not  believe  cheap  labor 
should  be  an  object  of  legislation,  and  it  cannot  be  in  a 
Republic.  The  wealthy  classes  in  a  Republic  where  suffrage  is 
universal,  cannot  safely  legislate  for  cheap  labor.  I  repeat  it. 
The  wealthy  classes  in  a  Republic  where  suffrage  is  universal, 
must  not  legislate  in  favor  of  cheap  labor.  Labor  should  not 
be  cheap,  and  it  should  not  be  dear ;  it  should  have  its  share, 
and  it  will  have  its  share.  There  is  not  a  laborer  on  the  Pacific 
coast  to-day  —  I  say  that  to  my  honorable  colleague  whose  whole 
life  has  been  consistent  and  uniform  in  defense  and  advocacy  of 
the  interests  of  the  laboring  classes  —  there  is  not  a  laboring- 
man  on  the  Pacific  coast  to-day  who  does  not  feel  wounded 
and  grieved  by  the  competition  that  comes  from  this  immigra 
tion.  Then  the  answer  is,  "But,  are  not  American  laborers 
equal  to  Chinese  laborers  ?  "  I  answer  that  question  by  asking 
another.  Were  not  free  white  American  laborers  equal  to 
African  slaves  in  the  South?  When  you  tell  me  that  the 
Chinaman  driving  out  the  free  American  laborer  only  proves 
the  superiority  of  the  Chinaman,  I  ask  you  if  the  African  slave 
driving  out  the  free  white  labor  from  the  South  proved  the 
superiority  of  slave  labor  ?  The  conditions  are  not  unlike : 
the  parallel  is  not  complete,  and  yet  it  is  a  parallel. 

Chinese  labor  is  servile  labor.  It  is  not  free  labor  such 
as  we  intend  to  develop  and  encourage  and  build  up  in  this 
country.  It  is  labor  that  comes  here  under  a  mortgage.  It  is 
labor  that  comes  here  to  subsist  on  what  the  American  laborer 
cannot  subsist  on.  You  cannot  work  a  man  who  must  have 
beef  and  bread,  and  would  like  beer,  in  competition  with  a 
man  who  can  live  on  rice.  In  all  such  conflicts  and  in  all  such 
struggles  the  result  is  not  to  bring  up  the  man  who  lives  on 
rice  to  the  beef  and  bread  standard,  but  it  is  to  bring  down  the 
man  living  on  beef  and  bread  to  the  rice  standard.  Slave  labor 
degraded  free  labor.  It  took  out  its  respectability,  it  put  an 
odious  caste  upon  it.  It  throttled  the  prosperity  of  one  of  the 
fairest  portions  of  the  Union  ;  and  a  worse  than  slave  labor  will 
throttle  and  impair  the  prosperity  of  a  still  finer  and  fairer  sec 
tion  of  the  Union.  We  can  choose  here  to-day  whether  our 
legislation  shall  be  in  the  interest  of  the  American  free  laborer 
or  in  favor  of  the  servile  laborer  from  China. 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION.  231 

I  rose,  Mr.  President,  to  speak  briefly.  I  have  had  many 
interruptions  or  I  should  have  long  since  taken  my  seat.  In 
conclusion,  I  maintain  that  the  legislation  now  proposed  is 
in  strictest  accord  with  international  obligation  on  these  two 
grounds :  First  we  have  given  notice  ;  and  second  the  Chinese 
Empire  has  persistently  violated  the  treaty.  Whether  you  take 
it  on  the  one  ground  or  the  other,  we  are  entirely  justified  in 
adopting  the  pending  measure.  The  Chinese  have  never  lived 
for  one  year  or  even  one  month  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty.  A 
treaty,  I  repeat,  which  is  interminable,  so  far  as  its  own  lan 
guage  is  involved,  must  be  terminated  if  either  party  desires 
its  termination,  by  just  such  action  as  this  bill  proposes. 

The  question  of  form  being  disposed  of,  the  question  of 
substance  is  whether  on  full  consideration  we  shall  devote  that 
interesting  and  important  section  of  the  United  States  which 
borders  on  the  Peaceful  Sea  to  be  the  home  and  the  refuge  of 
our  own  people  and  our  own  blood,  or  whether  we  shall  leave 
it  open,  not  to  the  competition  of  other  nations  like  ourselves, 
but  to  those  who,  degraded  themselves,  will  inevitably  degrade 
us.  We  have  this  day  to  choose  whether  we  shall  have  for  the 
Pacific  coast  the  civilization  of  Christ  or  the  civilization  of 
Confucius. 


282  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


CHINESE    IMMIGRATION. 


[The  day  following  the  preceding  speech  Mr.  Elaine  delivered  the  following, 
in  answer  to  a  speech  from  Senator  Eustis  of  Louisiana:  —  ] 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  I  have  heard  nothing  in  the  debate,  — 
I  believe  I  have  listened  to  all  of  it,  —  that  could  possibly 
give  the  honorable  senator  from  Louisiana  a  justification  for 
saying  that  there  was  any  defense  made  of  outrages  perpe 
trated  in  California  against  the  Chinese  who  are  already  there. 
I  think  the  human  race  on  all  continents  would  join  in  execrat 
ing  any  cruelty  or  injustice  toward  those  foreigners  who  are 
in  California  in  pursuance  of  treaty  stipulations,  and  who  are 
entitled  to  the  protection  of  the  law.  Nor  can  the  senator 
adduce  from  any  thing  that  I  said,  nor  do  I  think  lie  can 
adduce  from  what  any  other  senator  has  said,  a  shadow  of  plea 
in  behalf  of  extending  lenity  toward  those  in  the  South  who 
abuse  the  colored  race.  The  senator  from  Louisiana  forgets 
a  great  distinction  in  the  matter.  The  colored  race  in  Lou 
isiana  are  differently  related  to  us  from  the  Chinese  who  have 
not  yet  left  China.  I  beg  the  honorable  senator  to  observe 
that  this  legislation  is  aimed  at  the  Chinese  who  have  not 
yet  left  China.  I  beg  him  further  to  observe  that  the  great 
majority  of  the  colored  race  in  Louisiana  had  rights  there  when 
his  own  honored  ancestry  were  still  living  in  New  England.  The 
problem  is  wholly  different.  If  birth,  if  nativity,  if  long  settle 
ment,  if  domicile,  give  any  rights  so  far  as  Louisiana  is  con 
cerned,  the  senator  himself  is  but  a  carpet-bagger  of  the  second 
generation,  as  compared  with  the  negroes,  who  have  been  in 
Louisiana  for  eight  generations. 

I  do  not  deny  that  a  race  trouble  springs  from  the  situation 
and  surroundings  of  the  negro.  I  spoke  of  it  freely  yester- 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION".  233 

day.  There  is  a  trouble,  but  that  trouble  is  not  to  be  healed 
by  the  remedy  which  I  understand  the  honorable  senator  from 
Louisiana  to  advocate,  viz. :  that  National  authority  and  the 
National  protection  shall  be  withdrawn,  and  that  the  negroes 
shall  be  given  up  to  the  government  of  what  the  senator  from 
Louisiana  calls  the  superior  race.  But  I  think  the  senator  errs 
in  speaking  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  as  specially  in  conflict  with 
the  negro  in  Louisiana.  He  is  better  versed  in  the  history 
of  Louisiana  than  I,  but  I  have  heard  that  a  vast  deal  of  the 
trouble  in  Louisiana  comes  not  from  the  Anglo-Saxon  race,  but 
from  descendants  of  the  Latin  race  ;  and  when  he  speaks  of 
the  Anglo-Saxon  race,  he  probably  applies  the  term  to  the 
race  which,  by  numbers,  has  the  least  right  to  dominate  in 
the  State  of  Louisiana. 

Do  not  let  us  confuse  the  issue.  Let  me  admit  the  honorable 
senator's  argument  to  its  full  extent.  Let  me  admit  the  race 
trouble  of  the  South  as  strongly  as  he  will  paint  it,  and  then  I 
ask,  with  that  before  our  eyes  and  imprinted  on  our  history,  to 
be  dealt  with  in  a  future  generation,  whether  we  shall  deliber 
ately  invite  another  race  trouble  of  perhaps  more  serious  char 
acter?  Do  not  let  the  senator  from  Louisiana  confound  all 
distinctions  of  justice  and  all  rules  of  logic,  by  telling  us  that  a 
negro  whose  ancestors  have  been  here  for  nine  generations  is  to 
be  treated  by  the  laws  of  the  United  States  in  the  same  manner 
as  a  Cooly  who  wants  to  ship  to-day  from  Hong-Kong  to  our 
coast  on  the  Pacific.  As  a  nation  we  owe  nothing  to  the  Cooly. 
We  owe  much  to  the  negro.  I  will  here  read  a  paragraph  which 
can  never  be  read  too  often :  — 

"Yet,  if  God  wills  that  the  war  continue  until  all  the  wealth  piled  by  the 
bondman's  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  of  unrequited  toil  shall  be  sunk, 
and  until  every  drop  of  blood  drawn  with  the  lash  shall  be  paid  with 
another  drawn  with  the  sword,  as  was  said  three  thousand  years  ago,  so 
still  it  must  be  said,  4  The  judgments  of  the  Lord  are  true  and  righteous 
altogether.'" 

Nothing  truer  or  more  sublime  in  diction  was  ever  pro 
nounced  from  the  days  of  the  prophet  Ezekiel  to  the  death  of 
Abraham  Lincoln. 

I  regret  that  I  do  not  see  the  junior  senator  from  Massachu 
setts  [Mr.  Hoar]  in  his  seat.  When  I  was  absent  from  the 


234  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

Senate  last  night,  he  made  some  remarks,  from  which  I  read  the 
following :  — 

"The  argument  of  the  senators  from  California,  and  of  the  junior 
senator  from  Maine,  and  the  senator  from  Nevada,  is  the  old  argument  of 
the  slave-holder  and  the  tyrant  over  and  over  again  with  which  the  ears 
of  the  American  people  have  been  deafened,  and  which  they  have  over 
thrown." 

I  think  here  is  another  confounding  of  distinctions.  I  thought 
I  was  arguing  for  free  labor  against  servile  labor.  The  trouble 
in  the  South,  in  the  era  of  slavery,  was  an  unequal  and  un 
fair  partition  of  land.  There  were  vast  estates  on  which  the 
slaves  worked;  and  yet  in  all  the  opulence  of  the  wealthiest 
days  of  slavery,  the  largest  plantations  paled  before  the  magnifi 
cent  dukedoms  of  California  on  which  Coolies  are  imported  to 
labor.  When  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  says  that  I  am 
using  the  language  of  the  slave-holder,  he  is  arguing  in  favor  of 
these  grants  of  ten,  twenty,  forty,  sixty,  seventy,  eighty,  one 
hundred  thousand  acres,  larger  than  some  of  the  German  prin 
cipalities,  wrought  and  cultivated  by  Cooly  labor,  —  labor  con 
tracted  for  before  the  consul  signs  the  certificate  at  Hong-Kong, 
and  delivered  at  San  Francisco  according  to  order  from  the  deck 
of  the  steamer.  Does  he  wish  to  place  American  free  labor 
against  that  which  is  mere  slave  labor?  It  is  a  slight  confound 
ing  of  distinctions  which  the  honorable  senator  from  Massa 
chusetts  has  made.  That  is  all.  I  would  say  more  if  he  were 
in  his  seat. 

My  colleague  (Mr.  Hamlin)  certainly  will  not  think  I  mean 
any  thing  except  the  utmost  kindness  to  him  when  I  refer  to  the 
votes  that  were  given  on  this  question,  especially  when  I  say 
again,  as  I  said  yesterday,  that  had  I  been  here  I  should  have 
voted  with  him.  But  in  the  record  of  the  case,  as  read  by  the 
honorable  senator  from  Massachusetts,  something  was  left  out. 
Pending  the  discussion  of  the  naturalization  question,  the  white 
amendment  did  come  up,  just  'as  my  colleague  states.  At  a 
later  period  of  the  same  day,  instead  of  merely  striking  the 
word  "  white  "  out  of  the  naturalization  laws,  it  came  up  in  the 
form  of  an  amendment  to  admit  Africans  to  naturalization. 
For  that,  disembarrassed  from  all  the  considerations  to  which 
my  colleague  has  referred,  he  voted.  Then  it  was  that  Senator 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION.  235 

Trumbull  moved  to  include  "  or  persons  born  in  the  Chinese 
Empire."  On  that  question  the  vote  was  given  of  which  I 
spoke  yesterday.  So  that  the  question  came  just  as  palpably 
and  as  directly  as  it  could  come  before  the  Senate,  whether  or 
not  we  should  admit  the  Chinaman  to  citizenship  in  the  United 
States.  I  repeat,  perhaps  I  re-repeat,  that  the  effect  of  that 
vote  must  be  regarded  as  a  settlement  against  Chinese  immi 
gration  to  this  country,  on  the  simple  ground  that  in  a  Re 
public  where  suffrage  is  universal,  we  cannot  permit  a  large 
immigration  of  people  who  are  to  be  forbidden  the  elective 
franchise. 

I  must  not  forget  that  my  honorable  colleague  also  referred 
to  the  fact,  in  speaking  of  this  question  as  one  of  competi 
tion  in  labor,  that  the  same  competition  was  made  in  labor- 
saving  machinery.  I  beg  to  differ  from  him,  for  the  history  of 
labor-saving  machinery  from  the  beginning,  and  especially 
under  the  magnificent  progress  which  has  been  made  since  the 
steam-engine  was  invented,  has  been  continually  to  advance 
the  rank,  dignity,  and  emolument  of  labor.  The  price  of  free 
labor  and  the  pay  for  it  has  risen  steadily  in  the  world  ac 
cording  to  the  development  of  the  mechanical  and  scientific 
arts,  by  reason  of  the  simple  fact  that  if  by  an  invention  you 
decrease  the  number  of  laborers  in  one  field,  you  increase  the 
want  and  require  the  development  of  labor  in  another  field.  I 
point  to  an  unbroken  history  of  two  and  a  half  centuries,  in 
which  the  most  splendid  development  of  the  inventive  talent 
of  any  age  has  been  accompanied  step  by  step  with  a  steady 
advance  in  the  wages  of  the  laborer.  I  also  point  to  the  fact 
that  nowhere  on  earth  has  free  labor  been  brought  in  competi 
tion  with  any  form  of  servile  labor,  in  which  the  free  labor  did 
not  come  down  to  the  level  of  the  servile  labor.  It  has  been 
tried  against  the  African  slave  in  the  South ;  it  has  been  tried 
against  the  Peons  in  Mexico  and  Peru ;  it  has  been  tried  against 
the  Chinaman  in  California ;  the  universal  result  is  the  same. 
The  lower  strata  pull  down  the  upper.  The  upper  never 
elevate  the  lower. 


236  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


CHINESE   IMMIGRATION. 


[Letter  from  Mr.  Elaine  answering  certain  objections.] 

UNITED  STATES  SENATE  CHAMBER, 

WASHINGTON,  D.C.,  Feb.  21,  1879. 

To  THE  EDITOR  OF  THE  NEW- YORK  TRIBUNE. 

The  reflections  of  Mr.  William  Lloyd  Garrison  upon  the 
senators  who  voted  for  the  bill  restricting  Chinese  immigration 
are  made,  I  think,  without  the  thorough  examination  which  that 
gentleman  usually  brings  to  the  discussion  of  public  questions. 
Permit  me,  with  plainness  of  speech,  and  yet  with  no  abate 
ment  of  my  sincere  respect  for  Mr.  Garrison,  to  state  the 
grounds  on  which  I  cast  my  vote  for  the  measure. 

Up  to  Oct.  1,  1876,  the  records  of  the  San  Francisco  custom 
house  show  that  233,136  Chinese  had  arrived  in  this  country 
and  that  93,273  had  returned  to  China.  The  immigration  since 
has  been  large,  and  allowing  for  returns  and  deaths,  the  besf 
statistics  I  can  procure  show  that  about  109,000  Chinese  are  in 
California  and  from  20,000  to  25,000  in  the  adjacent  States  and 
Territories  — in  all.130,000  to  135,000  on  the  West  coast. 

Of  this  large  population  fully  nine-tenths  are  adult  males. 
The  women  have  not  in  all  numbered  over  seven  thousand,  and, 
according  to  all  accounts,  they  are  impure  and  lewd  far  beyond 
the  Anglo-Saxon  conception  of  impurity  and  lewdness.  One  of 
the  best-informed  Californians  I  ever  met,  says  that  not  one 
score  of  decent  and  pure  women  could  ever  have  been  found  in 
the  whole  Chinese  immigration.  It  is  only  in  the  imagined, 
rather  I  hope  the  unimagined,  feculence  and  foulness  of  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah  that  any  parallel  can  be  found  to  the  atrocious 
nastiness  of  the  Chinese  quarter  of  San  Francisco.  I  speak  of 
this  from  abounding  testimony  —  largely  from  those  who  have 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION.  237 

had  personal  opportunity  to  study  the  subject  in  its  revolting 
details.  In  the  entire  Chinese  population  of  the  Pacific  coast 
scarcely  one  family  is  to  be  found ;  no  hearthstone  of  comfort, 
no  fireside  of  joy ;  no  father  or  mother,  or  brother  or  sister ; 
no  child  reared  by  parents ;  no  domestic  and  ennobling  influ 
ences  ;  no  ties  of  affection.  The  relation  of  wife  is  degraded 
beyond  all  description,  the  females  who  hold  and  dishonor 
that  sacred  name  being  sold  and  transferred  from  one  man  to 
another,  without  shame  and  without  fear ;  one  woman  being  at 
the  same  time  the  wife  to  several  men.  Many  of  these  women 
came  to  San  Francisco  under  written  contracts  for  prostitution, 
openly  entered  into.  I  have  myself  read  the  translation  of 
some  of  these  abominable  documents.  If  as  a  nation  we 
have  the  right  to  keep  out  infectious  diseases,  if  we  have 
the  right  to  exclude  the  criminal  classes,  we  surely  possess 
the  right  to  exclude  that  immigration  which  reeks  with  im 
purity  and  which  cannot  come  to  us  without  plenteously  sow 
ing  the  seeds  of  moral  and  physical  disease,  of  destitution,  and 
of  death. 

The  Chinese  immigration  to  California  began  with  the  Ameri 
can  immigration  in  1848.  The  two  races  have  been  side  by  side 
for  more  than  thirty  years,  nearly  an  entire  generation,  and  not 
one  step  toward  assimilation  has  been  taken.  The  Chinese 
occupy  their  own  peculiar  quarter  in  the  city,  adhere  to  their 
own  dress,  speak  their  own  language,  worship  in  their  own 
heathen  temples,  and  inside  the  municipal  law  and  independent 
of  it,  administer  a  code  among  themselves,  even  pronouncing 
the  death  penalty  and  executing  it  in  criminal  secrecy.  If  this 
were  for  a  year  only,  or  for  two  or  five  or  even  ten  years,  it 
might  be  claimed  that  more  time  is  needed  for  domestication 
and  assimilation;  but  this  has  been  going  on  for  an  entire  gen 
eration,  and  the  Chinaman  to-day  approaches  no  nearer  to  our 
civilization  than  he  did  when  the  Golden  Gate  first  received 
him.  In  sworn  testimony  before  an  investigating  Committee 
of  Congress,  Dr.  Hears,  the  health  officer  of  San  Francisco, 
(described  as  "  a  careful  and  learned  man  "),  testified  that  the 
condition  of  the  Chinese  quarter  is  "  horrible,  inconceivably 
horrible  !  "  He  stated  that  the  Chinese  as  a  rule  "live  in  large 
tenement-houses,  large  numbers  crowded  into  individual  rooms, 


238  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

without  proper  ventilation,  with  bad  drainage,  and  underground, 
with  a  great  deal  of  filth,  the  odors  from  which  are  horrible." 
He  described  their  "  mode  of  taking  a  room  ten  feet  high  and 
putting  a  flooring  half  way  to  the  ceiling,  both  floors  being 
crowded  at  night  with  sleepers.  In  these  crowded  dens  cases 
of  small-pox  were  concealed  from  the  police."  "  They  live 
underground  in  bunks.  The  topography  of  that  portion  of 
Chinadom  is  such  that  you  enter  a  house  sometimes  and  think 
that  it  is  a  one-story  house  and  you  will  find  two  or  three  stories 
down  below  on  the  side  of  the  hill,  where  they  live  in  great 
filth." 

Another  close  and  accurate  observer,  long  a  resident  of 
California,  says  "  the  only  wonder  is  that  desolating  pestilences 
have  not  ensued.  Small-pox  has  often  been  epidemic,  and  could 
always  be  traced  to  Chinese  origin.  The  Chinese  quarter  was 
once  occupied  by  shops,  churches,  and  dwellings  of  Americans. 
Now  these  are  as  thoroughly  Mongolian  as  any  part  of  Canton. 
All  other  races  flee  from  the  contact."  Dr.  Mears  further  testi 
fied  and  gave  many  revolting  details  in  proof  that  the  Chinese 
"  are  cruel  and  indifferent  to  their  sick."  He  described  cases  of 
Chinese  lepers  at  the  city  hospital :  "  Their  feet  dropped  off  by 
dry  gangrene  and  their  hands  were  wasted  and  attenuated. 
Their  finger-nails  dropped  off."  He  said  "  the  Chinese  were 
gradually  working  Eastward  and  would  by  and  by  crowd  into 
Eastern  cities,  where  the  conditions  under  which  they  live  in 
San  Francisco  would  produce  in  the  absence  of  its  climatic  ad 
vantages,  destructive  pestilences."  Perhaps  a  Chinese  quarter 
in  Boston,  with  forty  thousand  Mongolians  located  somewhere 
between  the  south  end  and  the  north  end  of  the  city  and  sepa 
rating  the  two,  would  give  Mr.  Garrison  some  new  views  as  to 
the  power  and  right  of  a  nation  to  exclude  moral  and  physical 
pestilence  from  its  borders.  In  San  Francisco  there  is  no  hot 
weather,  the  thermometer  rarely  rising  above  sixty-five  degrees. 
One  of  the  most  intelligent  physicians  in  the  United  States  says 
that  the  Chinese  quarter  of  San  Francisco  transferred  to  St. 
Louis,  Chicago,  Cincinnati,  or  any  Eastern  city  would  in  a  hot 
summer  breed  a  plague  equal  to  the  "  black  death  "  that  has  so 
often  alarmed  the  civilized  world.  When  Mr.  Garrison  says  the 
immigration  of  Englishmen,  Irishmen,  Scotchmen,  Frenchmen, 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION.  239 

Germans,  and  Scandinavians  must  be  put  on  the  same  footing 
as  the  Chinese  coolies,  he  confounds  all  distinctions,  and,  of 
course,  without  intending  it,  libels  almost  the  entire  white 
population  whose  blood  is  inherited  from  the  races  he  names. 
All  the  immigration  from  Europe  to-day  assimilates  at  once  with 
its  own  blood  on  this  soil,  and  to  place  the  Chinese  coolies  on 
the  same  footing  is  to  shut  one's  eyes  to  all  the  instincts  of 
human  nature  and  all  the  teachings  of  history. 

Is  it  not  inevitable  that  a  class  of  men  living  in  this  degraded 
and  filthy  condition,  and  on  the  poorest  of  food,  can  work  for 
less  than  the  American  laborer  is  entitled  to  receive  for  his 
daily  toil  ?  Put  the  two  classes  of  labor  side  by  side  and  the 
cheap  servile  labor  pulls  down  the  more  manly  toil  to  its  level. 
The  free  white  laborer  never  could  compete  with  the  slave  labor 
of  the  South.  In  the  Chinaman  the  white  laborer  finds  only 
another  form  of  servile  competition  —  in  some  aspects  more 
revolting  and  corrupting  than  African  slavery.  Whoever  con 
tends  for  the  unrestricted  immigration  of  Chinese  coolies  con 
tends  for  that  system  of  toil  which  blights  the  prospects  of  the 
white  laborer  —  dooming  him  to  starvation  wages,  killing  his 
ambition  by  rendering  his  struggle  hopeless,  and  ending  in  a 
plodding  and  pitiable  poverty.  Nor  is  it  a  truthful  answer 
to  say  that  this  danger  is  remote.  Remote  it  may  be  for  Mr. 
Garrison,  for  the  city  of  Boston,  and  for  New  England,  but  it 
is  instant  and  pressing  on  the  Pacific  Slope.  The  late  Caleb 
Cushing,  who  had  carefully  studied  the  Chinese  question  ever 
since  his  mission  to  Peking  in  1842,  maintained  that  unless 
resisted  by  the  United  States  the  first  general  famine  in  China 
would  be  followed  by  an  immigration  to  California  that  would 
swamp  the  white  race  on  the  Pacific  Slope.  I  observe  that  a 
New  England  newspaper  —  I  especially  regret  that  such  igno 
rance  should  be  shown  in  New  England  —  says  it  is  only  "  a 
strip  "  on  the  Pacific  that  the  Chinaman  seeks  for  a  home.  The 
Chinese  are  already  scattered  over  three  States  and  two  adjacent 
Territories  whose  area  is  larger  than,  the  original  thirteen  colo 
nies.  California  alone  is  larger  than  New  England,  New  York, 
Pennsylvania,  and  Ohio,  and  is  capable  of  maintaining  a  vast 
population  of  Anglo-Saxon  freemen  if  we  do  not  surrender  it  to 
Chinese  coolies. 


240  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

Before  the  same  Committee  of  Investigation  from  whose 
report  I  have  already  quoted,  Mr.  T.  W.  Jackson,  a  man  of 
high  character,  who  had  traveled  extensively  in  the  East,  testi 
fied  that  his  strong  belief  was  "that  if  the  Chinese  felt  that 
they  were  safe  and  had  a  firm  footing  in  California  they  would 
come  in  enormous  numbers,  because  the  population  of  China  is 
practically  inexhaustible."  Such,  indeed,  is  the  unbroken  testi 
mony  of  all  who  are  entitled  -to  express  an  opinion.  The 
decision  of  Congress  on  this  matter  therefore  becomes  of  the 
very  last  importance.  Had  it  been  in  favor  of  Chinese  immi 
gration,  with  the  encouragement  which  such  a  decision  would 
have  implied,  it  requires  no  vivid  imagination  to  foresee  that 
the  great  slope  between  the  Sierras  and  the  Pacific  would 
become  the  emigrating  ground  for  the  Chinese  Empire.  I  do 
not  exaggerate  therefore  when  I  say  that  on  the  adoption 
or  rejection  of  the  policy  passed  upon  by  Congress,  hangs  the 
fate  of  the  Pacific  Slope  —  whether  its  labor  shall  be  that  of 
American  freemen  or  servile  Mongolians.  If  Mr.  Garrison 
thinks  the  interests  of  his  own  countrymen,  his  own  Govern 
ment,  and,  in  a  still  larger  sense,  the  interests  of  humanity  and 
civilization  will  be  promoted  by  giving  up  the  Pacific  Coast  to 
Mongolian  labor,  I  beg  respectfully  but  firmly  to  differ  from 
him.  There  is  no  ground  on  which  we  are  bound  to  receive 
them  to  our  own  detriment.  Charity  is  the  first  of  Christian 
graces.  But  Mr.  Garrison  would  not  feel  obliged  to  receive 
into  his  family  a  person  that  would  physically  contaminate  or 
morally  corrupt  his  children.  As  with  a  family  so  with  a 
nation :  the  same  instinct  of  self-preservation  exists,  the  same 
right  to  prefer  the  interest  of  our  own  people,  the  same  duty 
to  exclude  that  which  is  corrupting  and  dangerous  to  the 
Republic  ! 

The  outcry  that  we  are  violating  our  treaty  obligations  is 
without  foundation.  The  article  on  emigration  in  the  treaty 
has  not  been  observed  by  China  for  a  single  hour  since  it  was 
made.  All  the  testimony  taken  on  the  subject  —  and  it  has 
been  full  and  direct  —  shows  conclusively  that  the  entire  emi 
gration  was  "  under  contract ; "  that  the  coolies  had  been 
gathered  together  for  export  and  gathered  as  agents  in  our 
Western  States  would  gather  live-stock  for  shipment.  A  very 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION.  241 

competent  witness  in  California,  speaking  to  this   point,  says 
that  - 

"  On  the  arrival  of  the  Chinese  in  California  they  are  consigned  like  hogs 
to  the  different  Chinese  companies,  their  contracts  are  vised,  and  the  cooly 
commences  to  pay  to  the  companies  fees  to  insure  care  if  he  is  taken  sick 
and  his  return  home  dead  or  alive.  His  return  is  prevented  until  after  his 
contract  has  been  entirely  fulfilled.  If  he  breaks  his  contract  the  spies  of 
the  six  companies  hunt  him  to  prevent  his  returning  to  China  by  arrange 
ments  with  the  steamship  company  or  their  agents  in  the  steamship  employ 
to  prevent  his  getting  a  ticket.  The  agents  of  the  steamship  companies 
testified  to  this  same  fact.  If  a  ticket  is  obtained  for  him  by  others  he  is 
forcibly  stopped  on  the  day  of  sailing  by  the  employes  of  the  six  companies, 
called  'high-binders,'  who  can  always  be  seen  guarding  the  coolies." 

Mr.  Joseph  J.  Ray,  a  Philadelphia  merchant,  long  resident 
in  China,  and  a  close  observer  of  its  emigration,  says  "  that 
I9o9o9o  °f  tne  Chinese  who  have  reached  our  shores  were  not  free 
agents  in  their  coming.  Files  of  the  Hong-Kong  newspapers 
from  1861  would  supply  information  regarding  the  'barra- 
coons1  at  that  port,  and  when  the  system  had  become  too 
great  a  scandal,  their  removal  to  Macao  (a  Portuguese  colony, 
forty  miles  distant),  in  which  'barracoons,'  the  Chinese,  in 
every  sense  prisoners,  were  retained  until  their  shipment  to 
San  Francisco,  Callao,  Havana,  and  other  ports.  These,  called 
by  courtesy  immigrants,  were  collected  from  within  a  radius  of 
two  or  three  hundred  miles  from  Canton,  and  consisted  of  the 
abjectly  poor,  who,  willingly  or  not,  were  sold  to  obtain  food 
for  their  families,  or  for  gambling  debts  (the  Chinese,  as  you 
are  aware,  being  inveterate  gamblers),  or  the  scapegraces  of  the 
country  fleeing  to  avoid  punishment." 

It  is  of  course  a  mere  misuse  of  terms  to  call  this  an  "  en 
tirely  voluntary  emigration,"  and  yet  none  other  was  permissi 
ble  under  the  Buiiingame  Treaty.  Our  Government  would  be 
clearly  justified  in  disregarding  the  treaty  on  the  single  ground 
that  the  Chinese  Government  had  never  respected  its  provis 
ions.  But  without  reference  to  that,  our  Government  pos 
sesses  the  right  to  abrogate  the  treaty  if  it  adjudges  that  its 
continuance  is  "pernicious  to  the  State."  Indeed,  the  two 
pending  propositions  in  the  Senate  differ  not  in  regard  to  our 
own  right  to  abrogate  the  treaty,  but  simply  as  to  whether  we 
should  do  it  in  July,  1879,  by  the  exercise  of  our  power  with 
out  further  notice  to  China,  or  whether  we  should  do  it  in 


242  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

January,  1880,  after  notifying  China  that  we  had  made  up  our 
minds  to  do  it.  Nearly  a  year  ago  Congress  by  joint  resolution 
expressed  its  discontent  with  the  existing  treaty,  and  thus 
clearly  gave  notice  to  the  civilized  world, — if  notice  were  need 
ful, —  of  the  desire  and  intention  of  our  people.  In  the  late 
action  of  Congress  the  opposing  proposition  —  moved  as  a  sub 
stitute  for  the  bill  to  which  I  gave  my  support  —  requested  the 
President  to  notify  the  Emperor  of  China  that  Chinese  immi 
gration  is  "  unsatisfactory  and  pernicious,''  and  in  effect  if  he 
would  not  modify  the  treaty  as  we  desired,  then  the  President 
should  notify  the  Emperor  that  after  Jan.  1,  1880,  the  United 
States  will  "treat  the  obnoxious  stipulations  as  at  an  end." 
Both  propositions  —  the  bill  that  we  passed  and  the  substitute 
that  we  rejected  —  assumed  alike  the  full  right  to  abrogate  the 
treaty.  Whether  it  were  better  to  abrogate  it  after  last  year's 
joint  resolution,  or  to  inform  the  Emperor  of  China  directly 
that  if  he  will  not  consent  to  the  change  "  we  shall  make 
it  anyhow,"  must  be  relegated  for  decision  to  the  schools  of 
taste  and  etiquette.  The  first  proposition  resting  on  our  clear 
Constitutional  power  seems  to  me  a  better  mode  of  proceed 
ing  than  to  ask  the  Emperor  of  China  to  consent  to  a  modi 
fication  and  inform  him  at  the  same  time  that,  whether  he 
consents  or  not,  we  shall  on  next  New  Year's  Day  treat  "  the 
obnoxious  stipulations  as  at  end."  As  to  the  power  of  Con 
gress  to  do  just  what  has  been  done  no  one  will  entertain  a 
doubt  who  examines  the  whole  question.  An  admirable  sum 
mary  of  the  right  and  power  is  found  in  an  opinion  delivered 
by  that  eminent  jurist,  Benjamin  R.  Curtis,  when  he  was  a 
judge  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court.  Judge  Curtis 
said :  — 

"It  cannot  be  admitted  that  the  only  method  of  escape  from  a  treaty  is 
by  the  consent  of  the  other  party  to  it  or  a  declaration  of  war.  To  refuse 
to  execute  a  treaty  for  reasons  which  approve  themselves  to  the  conscien 
tious  judgment  of  a  nation  is  a  matter  of  the  utmost  gravity;  but  the  power 
to  do  so  is  a  prerogative  of  which  no  nation  can  be  deprived  without  deeply  affect 
ing  its  independence.  That  the  people  of  the  United  States  have  deprived 
their  Government  of  this  power  I  do  not  believe.  That  it  must  reside  some 
where,  and  be  applicable  to  all  caseSj  I  am  convinced,  and  I  feel  no  doubt  that 
it  belongs  to  Congress." 

A  great  deal  has  been  said  about  the  danger  to  jour  trade  if 
China  should  resort  to  some  form  of  retaliation.  The  natural 


CHINESE  IMMIGRATION.  243 

and  pertinent  retaliation  is  to  restrict  American  immigration 
to  China.  Against  that  we  will  enter  no  protest,  and  should 
have  no  right  to  do  so.  The  talk  about  China  closing  her  ports 
to  our  trade  is  made  only  by  those  who  do  not  understand  the 
question.  Last  year  the  total  amount  of  our  exports  to  all 
Chinese  ports  outside  of  Hong-Kong  was  but  8692,000.  I  have 
called  Hong-Kong  a  Chinese  port,  but  every  one  knows  that 
it  is  under  British  control,  and  if  we  were  at  war  with  China 
to-day  Hong-Kong  would  be  as  open  to  us  as  Liverpool.  To 
speak  of  China  punishing  us  by  suspending  trade  is  only  the 
suggestion  of  ignorance.  We  pay  China  a  large  balance  in 
coin,  and  probably  we  always  shall  do  it.  But  if  the  trade 
question  had  the  importance  which  some  have  erroneously 
attributed  to  it,  I  would  not  seek  its  continuance  by  permit 
ting  a  vicious  immigration  of  Chinese  coolies.  The  Bristol 
merchants  cried  out  that  commerce  would  be  ruined  if  Eng 
land  persisted  in  destroying  the  slave  trade.  But  England  did 
not  sacrifice  her  honor  by  yielding  to  the  cry. 

The  enlightened  religious  sentiment  of  the  Pacific  coast 
views  with  profound  alarm  the  tendency  and  effect  of  unre 
stricted  Chinese  immigration.  The  "pastors  and  delegates  of 
the  Congregational  churches  of  California "  a  year  since  ex 
pressed  their  "  conviction  "  that  "  the  Burlingame  treaty  ought 
to  be  so  modified  by  the  General  Government  as  to  restrict 
Chinese  immigration."  Rev.  S.  V.  Blakeslee,  editor  of  the 
oldest  religious  paper  on  the  Pacific  coast,  spoke  thus  in  an 
official  address :  — 

"Moreover,  wealthy  English  and  American  companies  have  organized 
great  money-making  plans  for  bringing  millions  —  it  is  true  —  even  millions 
—  of  these  Chinese  into  our  State,  and  into  all  parts  of  the  Union ;  and 
they  have  sent  out  emissaries  into  China  to  induce  the  people,  by  every  true 
and  false  story,  to  migrate  here.  Already  two  hundred  and  Jiffy  thousand 
have  come,  of  whom  one  hundred  thousand  remain. 

"  The  tendency  of  all  this  is  tremendously  toward  evil ;  toward  vice  and 
abomination ;  toward  all  opposed  to  the  true  spirit  of  Americanism,  and  is 
very  dangerous  to  our  morality,  to  our  stability,  and  to  our  success  as  a 
people  and  a  nation.  Millions  more  of  these  Chinese  must  come  if  not 
prevented  by  any  legal,  or  moral,  or  mobocratic  restraint,  increasing  in 
calculably  by  numbers  the  evils  already  existing;  while  a  spirit  of  race 
prejudices  and  clanship  jealousies  and  a  conflict  of  interests  must  be  devel 
oped,  portending  possible  evil  beyond  all  description." 


244  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

In  regard  to  the  process  of  converting  and  Christianizing 
this  people,  a  missionary  who  has  been  in  the  field  since  1849, 
testifies  that  not  one  in  a  thousand  has  even  nominally  pro 
fessed  a  change  from  heathenism,  and  that  of  this  small  number 
nearly  one-half  has  been  taught  in  missionary  schools  in  China. 
The  same  missionary  says,  "  as  they  come  in  still  larger  num 
bers  they  will  more  effectually  support  each  other  in  their 
national  peculiarities  and  vices,  become  still  more  confirmed  in 
heathen  immoralities,  with  an  influence  in  every  respect  in 
calculably  bad."  Under  what  possible  sense  of  duty  any  Ameri 
can  can  feel  that  he  promotes  Christianity  by  the  process  of 
handing  California  over  to  heathenism,  is  more  than  I  am  able 
to  discover. 

This  question  connects  itself  intimately  and  inseparably  with 
the  labor  question.  Immigration  of  the  Chinese  is  encour 
aged  by  some  openly,  by  many  secretly,  because  their  labor 
is  cheap.  The  experiment  is  a  most  dangerous  one.  In  a 
Republic  where  the  man  who  works  carries  a  ballot  in  his 
hands,  it  will  not  do  for  capitalized  wealth  to  legislate  for  cheap 
labor.  We  do  not  want  cheap  labor :  we  do  not  want  dear 
labor.  We  want  labor  at  fair  rates, — at  rates  that  shall  give 
the  laborer  his  fair  share,  and  capital  its  fair  share.  If  more 
is  sought  by  capital,  less  will  in  the  end  be  realized.  There  is 
not  a  laboring-man  from  the  Penobscot  to  the  Sacramento  who 
would  not  feel  aggrieved,  outraged,  burdened,  crushed,  by  be 
ing  forced  into  competition  with  the  labor  and  the  wages  of  the 
Chinese  cooly.  For  one,  I  will  never  consent  by  my  vote  or 
my  voice  to  drive  the  intelligent  workingmen  of  America  to 
that  competition  and  that  degradation.  Mr.  Garrison  spent 
the  best  years  of  an  honored  life  in  a  courageous  battle  for  the 
freedom  and  dignity  of  labor,  and  for  its  emancipation  from 
thraldom.  I  trust  he  will  not  lessen  the  gratitude  which  the 
workingmen  of  America  owe  him  for  his  noble  lead  in  the  past 
by  an  effort  now  to  consign  them  to  the  humiliation  and  the 
poverty  inevitably  resulting  from  the  competition  of  Chinese 
coolies. 

Years  ago,  Mr.  Carlyle  said  to  an  American  friend,  "  You  will 
hare  no  trouble  in  your  country  so  long  as  you  have  few  people 
-and  much  land;  but  when  you  have  much  people  and  little 


CHINESE   IMMIGRATION.  245 

land,  your  trials  will  begin."  No  one  connected  in  any  manner 
with  the  government  of  the  Republic  can  view  the  situation 
without  grave  concern.  At  least  nine  large  States  of  the  South 
are  disturbed  by  a  race  trouble,  of  which  no  man  is  yet  wise 
enough  to  see  the  end ;  the  central  and  largest  and  wealthiest 
of  our  Territories  is  seized  by  a  polygamous  population  which 
flaunts  defiance  in  the  face  of  the  General  Government:  dis 
content  among  unemployed  thousands  has  already  manifested 
a  spirit  of  violence,  and  but  recently  arrested  travel  between 
the  Atlantic  and  the  Mississippi  by  armed  mobs  which  defied 
three  States  and  commanded  great  trunk-lines  of  railway  to 
cease  operations.  Practical  statesmanship  would  suggest  that 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  should  avoid  the  increase 
of  race  troubles,  and  that  nothing  but  sheer  recklessness  will 
force  upon  the  American  population  of  the  Pacific  slope  the 
odious  contamination  of  the  lowest  grade  of  the  Chinese  race. 
It  may  be  attempted  ;  but,  in  my  judgment,  it  will  lead  to 
direful  results,  in  which  violence  and  murders  and  massacres 
will  be  terribly  frequent.  Let  it  be  proclaimed  here  and  now 
that  the  General  Government  will  maintain  unrestricted  immi 
gration  of  Chinese  coolies,  and  in  less  than  five  years  a  larger 
military  force  than  the  existing  Army  of  the  United  States 
will  be  required  to  keep  peace  on  the  Pacific  slope.  I  feel 
that  I  am  pleading  the  cause  of  the  free  American  laborer, 
and  of  his  children  and  of  his  children's  children  —  the  cause 
in  short  of  "  the  house  against  the  hovel ;  of  the  comforts  of 
the  freeman  against  the  squalor  of  the  slave." 


246  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


FALSE    ISSUE    RAISED    BY    THE    DEMOCRATIC 

PARTY. 


[On  the  25th  of  February,  1865,  Congress,  largely  Republican  in  both  branches, 
enacted  the  following  Law  which  was  approved  by  President  Lincoln. 

"  No  military  or  naval  officer,  or  other  person  engaged  in  the  civil,  military  or 
naval  service  of  the  United  States,  shall  order,  bring,  keep  or  have  under  his 
authority  or  control,  any  troops  or  armed  men  at  the  place  where  any  general  or 
special  election  is  held  in  any  State,  unless  it  be  necessary  to  repel  the  armed 
enemies  of  the  United  States,  or  to  keep  the  peace  at  the  polls."  Since  the 
revision  of  the  United  States  Statutes  this  law  has  been  known  as  Section  2002. 

Under  this  power  "  to  keep  the  peace  at  the  polls  "  Southern  elections  during 
the  reconstruction  period  were  fairly  regular  and  honest.  The  Democratic  party 
made  the  repeal  of  the  law  an  issue  and  agitated  it  for  years,  creating  the  popu 
lar  impression  that  the  Republican  National  Administration  kept  large  bodies 
of  troops  in  the  South  to  control  elections.  In  the  Forty-sixth  Congress  both 
Senate  and  House  were  under  the  control  of  the  Democratic  party.  The  part 
of  the  law  offensive  to  the  Democratic  party  was  contained  in  the  closing  words 
which  are  Italicized  above.  Instead  of  striking  those  words  out,  the  Democratic 
caucus  of  Senators  and  Representatives  resolved  to  re-enact  Section  2002  word 
for  word  with  the  exception  of  the  Italicized  words  at  the  end.  The  caucus  also 
determined  to  put  the  amendment  on  the  Army  Appropriation  Bill  and  to  make 
the  passage  of  the  Bill  dependent  on  the  President's  approving  it  with  the 
Amendment.  Mr.  Blaine  delivered  the  following  speech  on  the  bill  in  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  on  the  14th  of  April,  1879.] 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  The  existing  section  of  the  Revised 
Statutes  numbered  2002  reads  thus  :  — 

"  No  military  or  naval  officer,  or  other  person  engaged  in  the  civil,  military 
or  naval  service  of  the  United  States,  shall  order,  bring,  keep  or  have  under 
his  authority  or  control,  any  troops  or  armed  men  at  the  place  where  any 
general  or  special  election  is  held  in  any  State,  unless  it  be  necessary  to 
repel  the  armed  enemies  of  the  United  States,  or  to  ktep  the  peace  at  (he  polls." 

The  object  of  the  proposed  section,  which  has  just  been  read 
at  the  clerk's  desk,  is  to  get  rid  of  the  eight  closing  words, 
namely,  "  or  to  keep  the  peace  at  the  polls."  The  mode  of 
legislation  proposed  in  the  army  bill  now  before  the  Senate  is 


FALSE  ISSUE  RAISED  BY  THE  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY.    247 

therefore  an  unusual  mode.  It  is  an  extraordinary  mode.  If  it 
be  desired  to  repeal  a  single  sentence  at  the  end  of  a  section  in 
the  Revised  Statutes  the  ordinary  way  is  to  strike  off  those 
words,  but  the  mode  chosen  in  this  bill  is  to  repeat  and  re-enact 
the  whole  section,  leaving  those  few  words  out.  While  I  do  not 
wish  to  be  needlessly  suspicious  on  a  small  point,  I  am  quite 
persuaded  that  this  did  not  happen  by  accident.  It  came  by 
design.  If  I  may  so  speak,  it  came  of  cunning,  the  intent 
being  to  create  the  impression  that  the  Republicans  in  the 
administration  of  the  General  Government  had  been  using 
troops  right  and  left,  hither  and  thither,  in  every  direction, 
and  that  the  Democrats  as  soon  as  they  came  into  power 
enacted  this  section.  I  can  imagine  Democratic  candidates  for 
Congress  in  the  next  campaign  all  over  the  country  reading 
this  section  to  gaping  audiences  as  one  of  the  first  offsprings 
of  Democratic  reform,  whereas  every  word  of  it,  every  syllable 
of  it,  from  its  first  to  its  last,  is  the  enactment  of  a  Republican 
Congress. 

I  repeat  that  this  unusual  form  presents  a  dishonest  issue, 
whether  so  intended  or  not.  It  aims  to  make  it  appear  that  as 
soon  as  the  Democrats  got  possession  of  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  they  proceeded  to  enact  the  clause  which  is  thus  expressed. 
The  law  was  passed  by  a  Republican  Congress  in  February, 
1865.  There  were  forty-six  senators  sitting  in  this  Chamber 
at  the  time,  of  whom  only  ten  or  at  most  eleven  were  Demo 
crats.  The  House  of  Representatives  was  overwhelmingly 
Republican.  We  were  in  the  midst  of  a  war.  The  Republi 
can  administration  had  a  million  or  possibly  twelve  hundred 
thousand  bayonets  at  its  command.  Thus  situated,  with  the 
amplest  possible  power  to  interfere  with  elections  had  they 
so  designed,  with  soldiers  in  every  hamlet  and  county  of  the 
United  States,  the  Republican  party  themselves  placed  that 
provision  on  the  statute-book,  and  Abraham  Lincoln  signed  it. 

I  beg  you  to  observe,  Mr.  President,  that  this  is  the  first 
instance  in  the  legislation  of  the  United  States  in  which  any 
restrictive  provision  whatever  was  enacted  in  regard  to  the  use 
of  troops  at  the  polls.  The  Republican  party  did  it  with  the 
Senate  and  the  House  in  their  control.  Abraham  Lincoln  signed 
it  when  he  was  Commander-in-Chief  of  an  army  larger  than 


248  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

ever  Napoleon  Bonaparte  had  at  his  command.  So  much  by 
way  of  correcting  an  ingenious  and  studied  attempt  at  mis 
representation. 

The  alleged  object  is  to  strike  out  the  few  words  that  author 
ize  the  use  of  troops  "  to  keep  peace  at  the  polls."  This  country 
has  been  alarmed,  perhaps  I  would  better  say  amused,  at  the 
great  effort  made  to  create  an  impression  that  the  Republican 
party  relies  for  its  popular  strength  upon  the  use  of  the  bayonet. 
This  Democratic  Congress  has  attempted  to  give  a  bad  name  to 
this  country  throughout  the  civilized  world,  and  to  give  it  on  a 
false  issue  —  false  in  whole  and  in  detail,  false  in  the  charge, 
false  in  all  the  specifications.  The  impression  sought  to  be 
created,  as  I  say,  not  only  throughout  the  North  American 
Continent  but  in  Europe  to-day,  is  that  elections,  at  least  in  the 
Southern  States  of  the  Union,  are  controlled  by  the  bayonet. 

I  denounce  it  here  as  a  false  issue.  I  am  not  at  liberty  to 
say  that  any  gentleman  making  the  issue  knows  it  to  be  false. 
I  trust  he  does  not.  But  I  shall  prove  to  him  that  it  is  false, 
and  that  it  has  not  a  solitary  inch  of  solid  ground  to  rest  upon. 
I  have  in  my  hand  an  official  transcript  of  the  location  and  the 
number  of  all  the  troops  of  the  United  States  east  of  Omaha. 
By  "  east  of  Omaha,"  I  mean  all  the  United  States  east  of  the 
Mississippi  River  together  with  the  belt  of  States  that  border 
the  Mississippi  River  on  the  west.  They  include  forty-one 
millions  at  least  of  the  forty-five  millions  of  people  that  this 
country  is  supposed  to  contain  to-day.  In  that  magnificent 
area,  I  will  not  pretend  to  state  its  extent,  but  with  forty-one 
million  people,  I  know  officially  the  exact  number  of  troops. 
Would  any  senator  on  the  opposite  side  hazard  a  guess  as  to 
that  number  ?  Would  he  like  to  state  how  many  men  with 
muskets  in  their  hands  there  are  in  the  vast  area  I  have 
named  ?  Let  me  tell  him !  There  are  two  thousand  seven 
hundred  and  ninety-seven  !  Not  one  more. 

From  the  headwaters  of  the  Mississippi  River  to  the  lakes, 
and  down  the  great  chain  of  lakes,  and  down  the  St.  Lawrence, 
and  down  the  valley  of  the  St.  John,  and  down  the  St.  Croix, 
striking  the  Atlantic  Ocean  and  following  it  down  to  Key 
West,  around  the  Gulf,  to  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi  again,  a 
frontier  of  eight  thousand  miles  either  bordering  on  the  ocean 


FALSE  ISSUE  RAISED  BY  THE  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY.    249 

or  upon  foreign  territory  is  guarded  by  these  2,797  troops. 
Within  this  domain  forty-five  fortifications  are  manned  and 
eleven  arsenals  protected.  There  are  sixty  troops  to  every 
million  of  people.  In  the  South  I  have  the  entire  number  in 
each  State  and  will  give  it. 

I  believe  the  senator  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Bayard]  has  been 
alarmed,  greatly  alarmed,  about  the  overriding  of  the  popular 
ballot  by  troops  of  the  United  States  !  In  Delaware  there  is 
not  a  single  armed  man,  not  one.  The  United  States  has  not 
even  one  soldier  in  the  State ! 

The  honorable  senator  from  West  Virginia  [Mr.  Hereford] 
on  Friday  last  lashed  himself  into  a  passion,  or  at  least  into  a 
perspiration,  over  the  wrongs  of  his  State,  trodden  down  as  he 
pictured  it  by  the  iron  heel  of  military  despotism.  There  is 
not  a  soldier  of  the  United  States,  not  one  on  the  soil  of  West 
Virginia,  and  there  has  not  been  one  for  years. 

I  do  not  know  whether  my  esteemed  friend  from  Maryland 
[Mr.  Whyte]  has  been  greatly  disturbed  or  not ;  but  at  Fort 
McHenry,  guarding  the  entrance  to  the  beautiful  harbor  of  his 
beautiful  city  of  Baltimore,  there  are  one  hundred  and  ninety- 
two  artillery-men  and  not  another  soldier  on  the  soil  of  his 
State  from  the  Chesapeake  to  the  crest  of  the  Alleghenies. 

In  Virginia  there  is  a  school  of  practice  at  Fortress  Monroe. 
My  honorable  friend  who  has  charge  of  this  bill  [Mr.  Withers] 
knows  very  well,  and  if  he  does  not  I  will  tell  him,  that  outside 
of  that  school  of  artillery  practice  at  Fortress  Monroe,  which 
has  two  hundred  and  eighty-two  men,  there  is  not  a  Federal 
soldier  on  the  soil  of  Virginia  —  not  one. 

Are  the  senators  from  North  Carolina  frightened  by  the  im 
mediate  and  terrible  prospect  of  being  overrun  by  the  Army  of 
the  United  States?  On  the  whole  soil  of  North  Carolina  there 
are  but  thirty  soldiers  and  they  are  guarding  a  fort  at  the  mouth 
of  Cape  Fear  River  —  just  thirty. 

I  do  not  see  a  senator  on  the  floor  from  South  Carolina. 
There  are  one  hundred  and  twenty  artillery-men  guarding  the 
approaches  to  Charleston  Harbor  —  not  another  soldier  on  the 
soil  of  that  State. 

Does  my  gallant  friend  from  Georgia  [Mr.  Gordon],  who 
knows  better  than  I  the  force  and  strength  of  military  organi- 


250  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

zation,  does  he  the  senior  senator,  and  does  the  junior  also  [Mr. 
Benjamin  H.  Hill]  —  does  either  of  those  senators  feel  alarm  at 
the  presence  of  twenty-nine  Federal  soldiers  in  Georgia?  — 
There  are  just  twenty-nine  there  —  not  one  more  !  And  they 
are  guarding  the  entrance  to  the  harbor  of  Savannah. 

Florida  has  one  hundred  and  eighty-two  at  three  separate 
posts,  principally  guarding  the  navy  yard  at  Pensacola  near 
which  my  friend  on  the  opposite  side  [Mr.  Jones]  lives. 

Is  the  honorable  senator  from  Tennessee  [Mr.  Bailey]  op 
pressed  with  fear  at  the  progress  of  military  despotism  in  his 
State?  There  is  not  a  single  Federal  soldier  on  the  soil  of 
Tennessee,  —  not  one. 

I  see  both  the  honorable  senators  from  Kentucky  here.  They 
have  equal  cause  with  Tennessee  to  be  alarmed,  for  there  is  not 
a  Federal  soldier  in  Kentucky  —  not  one  I 

In  Missouri  there  are  a  half-dozen  guarding  some  arsenal 
stores  I 

There  are  fifty-seven  soldiers  in  Arkansas,  on  the  borders  of 
the  Indian  Territory. 

I  think  my  friend  from  Alabama  [Mr.  Morgan]  is  greatly 
excited  over  this  question,  and  in  his  State  there  are  thirty-two 
Federal  soldiers,  located  at  an  arsenal  of  the  United  States. 

The  State  of  Mississippi,  that  is  in  danger  of  being  trodden 
under  the  iron  hoof  of  military  power,  has  not  a  Federal  soldier 
on  its  soil. 

Louisiana  has  two  hundred  and  thirty-nine  guarding  ap 
proaches  from  the  sea. 

Texas,  apart  from  the  regiments  that  guard  the  frontier  on 
the  Rio  Grande  and  the  Indian  frontier,  has  not  one. 

The  entire  South  has  eleven  hundred  and  fifty-five  soldiers  to 
intimidate,  overrun,  oppress,  and  destroy  the  liberties  of  fifteen 
million  people,  and  rob  them  of  freedom  at  the  polls !  In  the 
Southern  States  there  are  twelve  hundred  and  three  counties. 
If  you  distribute  the  soldiers  by  counties  there  is  not  quite  one 
for  each  county  ;  and  when  I  give  the  counties  I  give  them  from 
the  census  of  1870.  If  you  distribute  these  soldiers  territorially 
there  is  one  for  every  seven  hundred  square  miles,  so  that  if 
you  make  a  territorial  distribution,  I  would  remind  the  honor 
able  senator  from  Delaware,  that  the  quota  for  his  State  would 


FALSE  ISSUE  RAISED  BY  THE  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY.    251 

be  three  —  "one  ragged  sergeant  and  two  abreast,"  as  the  old 
song  has  it.  That  is  the  formidable  force  ready  to  descend 
upon  Delaware  and  destroy  the  liberties  of  the  State. 

Mr.  President,  the  old  tradition  has  it,  that  the  soothsayers 
of  Rome  could  not  look  one  another  in  the  face  without 
smiling.  There  are  not  two  Democratic  senators  on  this  floor 
who  can  go  into  the  cloak-room  and  look  each  other  in  the 
face  without  smiling  at  this  talk,  or,  more  appropriately,  I 
should  say  without  blushing  —  the  whole  thing  is  such  a  pro 
digious  and  absolute  farce,  such  a  miserably  manufactured  false 
issue,  such  a  pretense  without  the  slightest  foundation  in  the 
world,  and  talked  about  most  and  denounced  the  loudest  in 
States  that  have  not  now  and  have  not  for  years  had  a  single 
Federal  soldier  within  their  boundaries.  In  New  England  we 
have  three  hundred  and  eighty  soldiers.  Throughout  the  South 
it  does  not  run  quite  seventy  to  the  million  people.  In  New 
England  we  have  absolutely  one  hundred  and  twenty  soldiers 
to  the  million.  New  England  is  far  more  overrun  to-day  by 
the  Federal  soldiery,  far  more,  than  is  the  whole  South.  I 
never  heard  any  one  complain  about  it  in  New  England,  or 
express  any  great  fear  of  his  liberties  being  endangered  by  the 
presence  of  a  handful  of  Federal  troops. 

As  I  have  said,  the  tendency  of  this  talk  is  to  give  us  a  bad 
name  in  Europe.  Republican  institutions  are  looked  upon 
there  with  jealousy.  Every  misrepresentation,  every  slander  is 
exaggerated  and  talked  about  to  our  discredit,  and  the  Demo 
cratic  party  of  the  country  to-day  stand  indicted,  and  I  here 
indict  them,  for  public  slander  of  their  country,  creating  the 
impression  in  the  civilized  world  that  we  are  governed  by  a 
military  despotism.  How  amazing  it  would  be  to  any  man  in 
Europe,  familiar  as  Europeans  are  with  great  armies,  if  he 
were  told  that  in  a  territory  larger  than  France  and  Spain  and 
Portugal  and  Great  Britain  and  Holland  and  Belgium  and 
the  German  Empire  all  combined,  there  are  but  eleven  hun 
dred  and  fifty-five  soldiers !  That  this  mad  cry,  this  false  issue, 
this  absurd  talk  is  based  upon  the  presence  of  eleven  hundred 
and  fifty-five  soldiers  on  eight  hundred  and  fifty  thousand 
square  miles  of  territory !  The  whole  number  of  soldiers  thus 
complained  of  is  not  double  the  number  of  the  Democratic 


252  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

police  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  or  in  the  city  of  New  Orleans, 
not  a  third  of  the  police  in  the  city  of  New  York.  I  repeat, 
the  number  indicts  the  Democracy ;  it  shows  the  whole  charge 
to  be  without  foundation ;  it  derides  the  issue  as  a  false,  scan 
dalous  and  partisan  makeshift. 

What  then  is  the  real  motive  underlying  this  movement? 
Senators  on  that  side,  Democratic  orators  on  the  stump  cannot 
make  any  sensible  set  of  men  at  the  cross-roads  believe  that 
there  is  danger  in  eleven  hundred  and  fifty-five  soldiers  dis 
tributed  over  the  South,  one  to  each  county.  The  moment 
you  state  it,  everybody  sees  its  palpable  and  laughable  absurd 
ity,  and  therefore  we  must  go  farther  and  find  a  motive  for 
all  this  cry.  It  is  not  the  troops  ;  that  is  evident.  There  are 
more  troops  by  fifty  per  cent  scattered  through  the  Northern 
States  east  of  the  Mississippi  to-day  than  through  the  Southern 
States  east  of  the  Mississippi,  and  yet  nobody  in  the  North 
speaks  of  it ;  anybody  would  be  laughed  at  for  speaking  of  it ; 
and  therefore  the  issue  on  the  troops,  being  a  false  one,  con 
ceals  the  true  issue,  which  is  simply  to  get  rid  of  the  Federal 
presence  at  Federal  elections,  to  get  rid  of  the  civil  power  of 
the  United  States  in  the  election  of  representatives  to  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States.  That  is  the  whole  of  it ;  and 
disguise  it  as  you  may  there  is  nothing  else  in  it  or  of  it. 

The  Democratic  party  simply  wishes  to  get  rid  of  the  super 
vision  by  the  Federal  Government  of  the  election  of  repre 
sentatives  to  Congress  through  civil  means  ;  and  therefore  this 
bill  connects  itself  directly  with  another  bill,  and  you  cannot 
discuss  this  military  bill  without  discussing  a  bill  which  was 
before  us  last  winter,  known  as  the  legislative,  executive,  and 
judicial  appropriation  bill.  I  am  well  aware  that  it  is  not 
permissible  for  me  to  discuss  a  bill  that  is  pending  before  the 
other  House.  I  am  aware  that  propriety  and  parliamentary 
rule  forbid  that  I  should  speak  of  what  is  done  in  the  House 
of  Representatives ;  but  I  know  very  well  that  I  am  not  for 
bidden  to  speak  of  that  which  is  not  done  in  the  House  of 
Representatives.  I  am  therefore  perfectly  free  to  declare  that 
neither  this  military  bill  nor  the  legislative,  executive,  and 
judicial  appropriation  bill  ever  emanated  from  any  committee 
of  the  House  of  Representatives ;  they  are  not  the  work  of  any 


FALSE  ISSUE  RAISED  BY  THE  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY.    253 

committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and,  although  the 
present  House  of  Representatives  is  almost  evenly  balanced  in 
party  division,  no  solitary  suggestion  has  been  allowed  to  come 
from  the  minority  of  that  House  in  regard  to  the  shaping  of 
these  bills.  Where  do  they  come  from?  We  are  not  left  to 
infer ;  we  are  not  even  left  to  the  Yankee  privilege  of  guessing, 
because  we  know.  The  senator  from  Kentucky  [Mr.  Beck] 
obligingly  told  us  —  I  have  his  exact  words  here  —  "  that  the 
honorable  senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Thurman]  was  the  chairman 
of  a  committee  appointed  by  the  Democratic  party  to  see  how  it 
was  best  to  present  all  these  questions  before  us."  Therefore 
when  I  discuss  these  two  bills  together  I  am  violating  no  par 
liamentary  law,  I  am  discussing  the  offspring  and  the  creation 
of  the  Democratic  caucus  of  which  the  senator  from  Ohio  is 
the  chairman. 

We  are  told,  too,  a  rather  novel  thing,  that  if  we  do  not 
take  these  laws,  we  are  not  to  have  the  appropriations.  I  be 
lieve  it  has  been  announced  in  both  branches  of  Congress,  I 
suppose  on  the  authority  of  the  Democratic  caucus,  that  if  we 
do  not  take  these  bills  as  they  are  planned,  we  shall  not  have 
any  of  the  appropriations  that  go  with  them.  The  honorable 
senator  from  West  Virginia  [Mr.  Hereford]  avowed  it  on  Fri 
day  ;  the  honorable  senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Thurman]  avowed 
it  last  session ;  the  honorable  senator  from  Kentucky  [Mr. 
Beck]  avowed  it  at  the  same  time,  and  I  am  not  permitted 
to  speak  of  the  legions  who  proclaimed  it  in  the  other  House. 
They  say  all  these  appropriations  are  to  be  refused — not  merely 
the  Army  appropriation,  for  they  do  not  stop  at  that.  Look 
for  a  moment  at  the  legislative  bill  that  came  from  the  Demo 
cratic  caucus.  Here  is  an  appropriation  in  it  for  defraying  the 
expenses  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  Circuit  and  District 
Courts  of  the  United  States,  including  the  District  of  Columbia, 
"  12,800,000 : "  "  Provided  "  —  provided  what  ? 

"  That  the  following  sections  of  the  Revised  Statutes  relating  to  elec 
tions  [going  on  to  recite  them]  be  repealed." 

That  is,  you  will  pass  an  appropriation  for  the  support  of 
the  Judiciary  of  the  United  States  only  on  condition  that 
something  else,  entirely  disconnected  from  the  Judiciary  be 


254  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

repealed.  We  often  speak  of  this  Government  being  divided 
into  three  great  departments,  the  Executive,  the  Legislative, 
and  the  Judicial  —  co-ordinate,  independent,  equal!  The  Legis 
lative,  under  the  control  of  a  Democratic  caucus,  now  steps  for 
ward  and  says,  "We  offer  to  the  Executive  this  bill,  and  if  he 
does  not  sign  it,  we  are  determined  to  starve  the  Judiciary." 
That  is  carrying  the  thing  somewhat  farther  than  I  have  ever 
known  to  be  attempted.  You  do  not  merely  propose  to  starve 
the  Executive  if  he  will  not  sign  the  bill,  but  you  propose  to 
starve  the  Judiciary  that  has  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
the  question.  This  has  been  boldly  avowed  here ;  this  has 
been  boldly  avowed  on  the  floor  of  the  other  House ;  this 
has  been  boldly  avowed  in  Democratic  papers  throughout  the 
whole  country. 

You  propose  not  merely  to  starve  the  Judiciary  but  you 
declare  that  you  will  not  appropriate  a  solitary  dollar  to  take 
care  of  this  Capitol.  The  men  who  take  care  of  all  this  public 
property  are  provided  for  in  the  same  bill.  You  say  they  shall 
not  have  a  dollar  of  pay  if  the  President  will  not  agree  to 
change  the  election  laws. 

There  is  the  public  printing  that  goes  on  for  the  enlighten 
ment  of  the  whole  country,  and  for  printing  the  public  docu 
ments  of  every  one  of  the  Departments.  You  say  they  shall 
not  have  a  dollar  for  public  printing  unless  the  President  agrees 
to  repeal  these  laws  which  regulate  the  election  of  representa 
tives  in  Congress. 

There  is  the  Congressional  Library  that  has  become  the  pride 
of  the  whole  American  people  for  its  'magnificent  growth  and 
extent!  You  say  it  shall  not  have  one  dollar  for  its  daily 
care,  much  less  to  add  a  new  book,  unless  the  President  signs 
these  bills. 

There  is  the  Department  of  State  which  has  been  our  pride 
throughout  the  history  of  the  Government  for  the  ability  with 
which  it  has  conducted  our  foreign  affairs.  It  is  also  to 
be  starved.  You  say  we  shall  not  have  any  intercourse  with 
foreign  nations,  not  a  dollar  shall  be  appropriated  for  ministers 
or  consuls  unless  the  President  signs  these  bills. 

There  is  the  Lighthouse  Board  that  provides  for  the  beacons 
and  the  warnings  on  seventeen  thousand  miles  of  sea  and  gulf 


FALSE  ISSUE  RAISED  BY  THE  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY.    255 

and  lake  coast.  You  say  those  lights  shall  all  go  out,  and  not 
a  dollar  shall  be  appropriated  for  the  Board  if  the  President 
does  not  sign  these  bills,  which  a  Democratic  caucus  has  agreed 
upon,  and  demands  that  everybody  else  shall  assent  to. 

There  are  the  mints  of  the  United  States  at  Philadelphia, 
New  Orleans,  Denver,  San  Francisco,  coining  silver  and  coin 
ing  gold.  You  declare  not  a  dollar  shall  be  appropriated  for 
them  if  the  President  does  not  sign  these  bills. 

There  is  the  Patent  Office,  the  patents  issued  which  embody 
the  invention  of  the  country  —  not  a  dollar  for  them.  The 
Pension  Bureau  shall  cease  its  operations  unless  these  bills  are 
signed,  and  patriotic  soldiers  may  starve.  The  Agricultural 
Bureau,  the  Post-Office  Department,  every  one  of  the  great 
executive  functions  of  the  Government  is  threatened,  taken  by 
the  throat,  highwayman  style,  commanded  to  stand  and  deliver 
in  the  name  of  the  Democratic  Congressional  caucus.  No  com 
mittee  of  this  Congress  in  either  branch  has  ever  recommended 
this  legislation  —  not  one.  Simply  a  Democratic  caucus  has 
done  it. 

Of  course  this  is  new.  We  are  learning  something  every 
day.  I  think  you  may  search  the  records  of  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment  in  vain ;  it  will  take  some  one  much  more  industrious 
in  that  search  than  I  have  ever  been,  and  much  more  observant 
than  I  have  ever  been,  to  find  any  possible  parallel  or  any 
possible  suggestion  in  our  history  of  such  a  thing.  Many 
of  the  senators  who  sit  in  this  Chamber  can  remember  some 
extraordinary  vetoes.  The  veto  of  the  National  Bank  Bill  by 
President  Jackson  in  1832,  remembered  by  the  oldest  in  this 
Chamber ;  the  veto  of  the  National  Bank  Bill  in  1841  by 
President  Tyler,  remembered  by  those  not  the  oldest,  aroused  a 
political  excitement  which  up  to  that  time  had  no  parallel ;  and 
it  was  believed,  whether  rightfully  or  wrongfully  is  no  matter,  it 
was  believed  by  those  who  advocated  those  financial  measures 
at  the  time,  that  they  were  of  the  very  first  and  the  very  last 
importance  to  the  well-being  and  prosperity  of  the  people  of  the 
Union.  It  was  so  believed  by  men  who  were  the  great  and 
shining  lights  of  that  day.  It  was  so  believed  by  that  man  of 
imperial  character  and  imperious  will,  the  illustrious  senator 
from  Kentucky.  It  was  so  believed  by  representative  Whigs  in 


256  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

both  branches  of  Congress.  When  Jackson  vetoed  the  one,  or 
Tyler  vetoed  the  other,  was  there  a  suggestion  that  those  bank 
charters  should  be  put  on  appropriation  bills,  and  that  there 
should  not  be  a  dollar  to  support  the  Government  until  they 
were  signed  ?  So  far  from  it  that,  in  1841,  when  temper  was  at 
its  height,  when  the  Whig  party,  in  addition  to  losing  their  great 
measure,  lost  it  under  the  sting  and  the  irritation  of  what  they 
believed  was  a  desertion  by  the  President  whom  they  had  chosen, 
and  when  Mr.  Clay,  goaded  by  all  these  considerations,  rose  to 
debate  the  question  in  the  Senate,  he  repelled  with  anger  the 
suggestion  of  Mr.  William  C.  Rives  of  Virginia,  who  attempted 
to  make  upon  him  the  point  that  he  had  indulged  in  some  threat 
involving  the  independence  of  the  Executive.  Mr.  Clay's  re 
sponse  may  be  recalled  and  read  here  with  profit  to  every  one  :  — 

"I  said  nothing  whatever  of  any  obligation  on  the  part  of  the  President 
to  conform  his  judgment  to  the  opinions  of  the  Senate  and  the  House  of 
Representatives,  although  the  senator  argued  as  if  I  had,  and  persevered 
in  so  arguing  after  repeated  correction.  I  said  no  such  thing.  I  know'and 
I  respect  the  perfect  independence  of  each  department,  acting  within  its 
proper  sphere,  of  the  other  departments." 

A  leading  Democrat  from  the  South,  a  man  who  has  courage 
and  frankness  and  many  good  qualities,  has  boasted  publicly 
that  the  Democracy  are  in  power  for  the  first  time  in  eighteen 
years,  and  they  do  not  intend  to  stop  until  they  have  wiped 
out  every  vestige  of  every  war  measure.  "  Forewarned  is 
fore-armed,"  and  you  begin  appropriately  on  a  measure  that 
has  the  signature  of  Abraham  Lincoln.  It  is  significant  to 
hear  these  Avords  from  a  man  who  was  then  in  arms  against 
the  Government  of  the  United  States,  doing  his  best  to  destroy 
it,  exerting  all  his  power  in  a  bloody  and  terrible  rebellion 
against  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  while  Abraham 
Lincoln  was  marching  at  the  same  time  to  martyrdom  in  its 
defense  !  Strange  times  have  fallen  when  those  of  us  who  had 
the  great  honor  to  be  associated  in  higher  or  lower  degree 
with  Mr.  Lincoln  in  the  administration  of  the  Government 
live  to  hear  men  in  public  life  and  on  the  floors  of  Congress, 
fresh  from  the  battle-fields  of  the  rebellion,  threatening  the  peo 
ple  of  the  United  States  that  the  Democratic  party,  in  power 
for  the  first  time  in  eighteen  years,  proposes  not  to  stay  its 


FALSE   ISSUE  RAISED  BY  THE  DEMOCRATIC   PARTY.    2o7 

hand  until  every  vestige  of  the  war  measures  has  been  wiped 
out !  The  Vice-President  of  the  late  confederacy  boasted  — 
perhaps  I  would  better  say  stated  —  that  for  sixty  out  of  the 
seventy-two  years  preceding  the  outbreak  of  the  rebellion, 
from  the  foundation  of  the  Government,  the  South,  though  in 
a  minority,  had,  by  combining  with  what  he  termed  the  "  anti- 
centralists  "  in  the  North,  ruled  the  country ;  and  in  1866  the 
same  gentleman  indicated  in  a  speech,  I  think  before  the  Legis 
lature  of  Georgia,  that  by  a  return  to  Congress  the  South  might 
repeat  the  experiment  with  the  same  successful  result. 

I  read  that  speech  at  the  time,  but  I  little  thought  I  should 
live  to  see  so  near  a  fulfillment  of  its  baleful  prediction.  I 
see  here  to-day  two  great  measures  emanating,  as  I  have  said, 
not  from  a  committee  of  either  House,  but  from  a  Democratic 
caucus  in  which  the  South  has  an  overwhelming  majority,  two- 
thirds  in  the  House,  and  out  of  forty-two  senators  on  the  other 
side  of  this  Chamber  professing  the  Democratic  faith,  thirty 
are  from  the  South  —  twenty-three,  a  positive  and  pronounced 
majority,  having  themselves  been  participants  in  the  revolt 
against  the  Union  either  in  military  or  civil  station.  As  a 
matter  of  fact  therefore  the  legislation  of  this  country  to-day, 
shaped  and  fashioned  in  a  Democratic  caucus  where  the  con 
federates  of  the  South  hold  the  majority,  is  the  realization  of 
Mr.  Stephens's  prophecy.  Very  appropriately  the  House  under 
that  control  and  the  Senate  under  that  control,  embodying  thus 
the  entire  legislative  powers  of  the  Government,  deriving  its 
political  strength  from  the  South,  elected  from  the  South,  say 
to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  at  the  head  of  the  Ex 
ecutive  Department  of  the  Government,  elected  by  the  whole 
people,  but  elected  as  a  Northern  man ;  elected  on  Republican 
principles,  elected  in  opposition  to  the  party  that  controls  both 
branches  of  Congress  to-day  —  they  boldly  say,  "  You  shall  not 
exercise  your  Constitutional  power  to  veto  a  bill." 

Some  gentleman  may  rise  and  say,  "  Do  you  call  it  revolution 
to  put  an  amendment  on  an  appropriation  bill?"  Of  course 
not.  There  have  been  a  great  many  amendments  put  on  appro 
priation  bills,  some  mischievous  and  some  harmless  ;  but  T  call 
it  the  audacity  of  revolution  for  any  senator  or  representative,, 
or  any  caucus  of  senators  or  representatives,  to  get  together  and- 


258  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

say,  "  We  will  have  this  legislation  or  we  will  stop  the  great 
departments  of  the  Government."  That  is  revolutionary.  I 
do  not  think  it  will  amount  to  revolution  ;  my  opinion  is  it  will 
not.  I  think  it  is  a  revolution  which  will  not  revolve.  But  it 
is  a  revolution  if  persisted  in,  and  if  not  persisted  in,  it  must 
be  retreated  from  with  ignominy.  The  Democratic  party  in 
Congress  have  put  themselves  exactly  in  this  position  to-day, 
that  if  they  go  forward  in  the  announced  programme,  they 
march  to  revolution.  I  think  they  will,  in  the  end,  go  back 
ward  in  ignominious  retreat.  That  is  my  judgment.  I  think 
it  the  judgment  of  all  who  observe  the  operation  of  general 
principles ! 

The  extent  to  which  they  control  the  legislation  of  the 
country  is  worth  pointing  out.  In  round  numbers,  the  South 
ern  people  are  about  one-third  of  the  population  of  the  Union. 
I  am  not  permitted  to  speak  of  the  organization  of  the  House 
of  Representatives,  but  I  can  refer  to  that  of  the  last  House. 
In  the  last  House  of  Representatives,  of  the  forty-two  standing 
committees  the  South  had  twenty-five.  I  am  not  blaming  the 
honorable  Speaker  for  it.  He  was  hedged  in  by  partisan 
forces,  and  -could  not  avoid  it.  In  this  very  Senate,  out  of 
thirty-four  standing  committees  the  South  has  twenty-two.  I 
am  not  calling  these  things  up  at  this  time  in  reproach ;  I  am 
only  showing  what  an  admirable  prophet  was  the  vice-president 
of  the  late  Southern  confederacy,  how  entirely  true  all  his 
words  have  been,  and  how  he  has  lived  to  see  them  realized. 

I  do  not  profess  to  know,  Mr.  President,  least  of  all  senators 
on  this  floor,  certainly  as  little  as  any  senator  on  this  floor,  do 
I  profess  to  know,  what  the  President  of  the  United  States  will 
do  when  these  bills  are  presented  to  him,  as  I  suppose  in  due 
course  of  time  they  will  be.  I  certainly  should  never  speak  a 
word  of  disrespect  of  the  gentleman  holding  that  exalted  posi 
tion,  and  I  hope  I  should  not  speak  a  word  unbefitting  the 
dignity  of  the  office  of  a  senator  of  the  United  States.  But  as 
there  has  been  speculation  here  and  there  on  both  sides  as  to 
what  he  would  do,  I  should  expect  that  the  dead  heroes  of  the 
Union  would  rise  from  their  graves  sooner  than  he  should 
consent  to  be  intimidated  and  outraged  in  his  proper  Constitu 
tional  power  by  threats  like  these  ! 


FALSE  ISSUE   RAISED  BY  THE  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY.    259 

All  the  war  measures  of  Abraham  Lincoln  are  to  be  wiped 
out,  say  leading  Democrats !  The  Bourbons  of  France  busied 
themselves,  after  the  restoration,  in  removing  every  trace  of 
Napoleon's  power  and  grandeur,  even  chiseling  the  "  N  "  from 
public  monuments  raised  to  perpetuate  his  glory  ;  but  the  dead 
man's  hand  from  St.  Helena  reached  out  and  destroyed  them 
in  their  pride  and  in  their  folly.  Let  the  senators  on  the  other 
side  of  this  Chamber  remember  —  let  the  Democratic  party 
North  and  South  remember,  that  the  tomb  of  the  martyred 
President  on  the  prairies  of  Illinois  is  not  less  sacred  or  less 
potent  with  the  American  people  than  was  the  dust  of  Napoleon 
to  the  France  that  he  loved !  Though  dead,  the  Great  President 
speaketh. 

When  you  present  these  bills  with  these  threats  to  the  living 
President,  who  bore  the  commission  of  Abraham  Lincoln  and 
served  with  honor  in  the  Army  of  the  Union  which  Lincoln 
restored  and  preserved,  I  can  think  of  only  one  appropriate 
response  from  his  lips  or  his  pen : 

"  Is  thy  servant  a  dog  that  he  should  do  this  thing  ?  " 


260  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


NATIONAL    SOVEREIGNTY   AGAINST   STATE    SOV 
EREIGNTY.— POSITION   OF   MR.  WEBSTER. 


[In  a  debate  in  the  United  States  Senate  involving  this  question  Mr.  Elaine 
made  the  following  speech  on  the  19th  of  May,  1879.] 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  Whether  the  honorable  Senator  from 
Connecticut  [Mr.  Eaton]  or  myself  should  the  more  correctly 
remember  a  paragraph  from  Mr.  Webster's  speeches  is  a  matter 
of  small  personal  consequence,  and  of  no  public  importance. 
It  is  not,  therefore,  with  any  intention  of  vindicating  a  better 
memory  or  a  more  accurate  quotation  that  I  refer  to  this  sub 
ject;  but  it  is  because  there  has  been  a  persistent  attempt, 
in  which  I  am  sorry  the  Senator  from  Connecticut  has  taken 
part,  to  misrepresent  Mr.  Webster  and  declare  that  near  the 
close  of  his  life  and  at  the  end  of  his  political  career  he 
changed  his  views,  and  that  he  had  somewhere  to  some  public 
assemblage  practically  retracted  the  great  arguments  he  had 
made  against  the  State-rights  heresies  and  in  behalf  of  the  Con 
stitution  and  the  Union.  The  honorable  Senator  from  Connec 
ticut  on  the  occasion  to  which  he  has  himself  made  reference 
spoke  thus :  — 

"  I  said  that  Mr.  Webster  called  this  '  a  confederacy  of  States.'  I  say  he 
called  it  not  only  a  confederacy  of  States,  but  *  a  confederation  of  States.' " 

A  little  later,  during  a  brief  colloquy  between  the  Senator 
and  myself,  he  said  :  — 

"  When  he  reads  a  few  words  from  a  certain  speech  of  Mr.  Webster  does 
the  honorable  Senator  from  Maine  undertake  to  assert  on  this  floor  that  Mr. 
Webster  did  not  again  and  again  call  this  Government  not  only  '  a  confed 
eration  of  States  '  but  '  a  compact  between  States  'V  I  say  he  did." 

Still  again  the  Senator  from  Connecticut  said :  — 

"When  the  proper  time  arrives  —  I  have  not  the  library  of  Mr.  Webster 
in  my  pocket,  I  do  not  carry  it  around  with  me  [laughter] — when  the 
proper  time  arrives  I  will  show  that  Mr.  Webster  called  this  'a  confed 
eracy  '  and  'the  Constitution  a  compact.'  " 


NATIONAL  SOVEREIGNTY.  261 

The  honorable  Senator  came  into  the  Senate  on  Friday  last 
and  very  frankly  and  magnanimously  admitted  that  he  had  not 
been  able  to  find  that  Mr.  Webster  had  in  any  speech  called 
this  Government  a  "  confederacy  of  States,"  but  he  Avas  very 
sure  he  had  called  it  "a  compact"  and  "a  compact  between 
the  States."  Let  me  read  what  the  honorable  Senator  said  :  — 

"  In  1851,  in  his  celebrated  Capon  Springs  speech,  the  language  of  Mr. 
Webster  admits  of  no  dispute.  Whatever  he  may  have  said  on  other  occa 
sions,  whatever  he  said  in  his  great  discussion  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  with 
Mr.  Hayne  or  with  Mr.  Calhoun,  on  the  occasion  of  this  speech,  in  the  most 
unqualified  manner,  he  asserted  the  fact  for  which  I  contend,  that  the  Con 
stitution  is  a  compact  between  parties  competent  to  enter  into  a  compact,  to 
wit,  the  States." 

The  honorable  senator  held  in  his  hand  at  that  time  a  very 
mischievous  book,  and  I  may  say  he  derived  his  facts,  if  not  his 
inspiration,  from  that  book,  which  is  now  before  me.  It  is  a 
book  written  by  a  gentleman  of  great  influence  in  the  South, 
of  acknowledged  ability,  of  long  and  eminent  service  in  the 
public  councils,  —  Mr.  Alexander  H.  Stephens  of  Georgia.  It 
is,  as  I  have  said,  a  mischievous  book.  It  is  mischievous  in  its 
title,  it  is  mischievous  in  its  preface,  it  is  mischievous  in  every 
word  from  the  opening  to  the  closing  chapter ;  and  it  is  mis 
chievous  because,  although  the  author  is  a  sincere  man  him 
self,  it  is  an  elaborate  tissue  of  absolute  misrepresentations, 
and  misrepresentations  from  a  sincere  man  are  much  more 
hurtful  than  misrepresentations  from  one  who  designs  to 
misrepresent. 

In  this  book,  Mr.  Stephens  takes  the  ground  that  Mr.  Webster 
had  recanted,  and  changed  his  views  in  regard  to  the  nature  of 
our  Government.  On  the  four  hundred  and  third  page  of  the 
first  volume  he  says :  — 

"But  besides  all  this,  as  a  further  proof  of  Mr.  Webster's  change  of  views 
as  to  the  Constitution  being  a  compact  between  the  States,  I  cite  you  to  a 
later  speech  made  by  him  at  Capon  Springs,  in  Virginia,  on  the  28th  June, 
1851." 

And  he  quotes  then  what  the  Senator  from  Connecticut 
quoted  in  this  Chamber.  Mr.  Stephens  then  says :  — 

"  In  this  speech  Mr.  Webster  distinctly  held  that  the  Union  was  a  union 
of  States.  That  the  Union  was  founded  upon  compact." 


262  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

Again  Mr.  Stephens  says  :  — 

"  I  did  not  agree  with  him  [Mr.  Webster]  in  his  exposition  of  the  Consti 
tution  in  1833,  but  I  did  fully  and  cordially  agree  with  him  in  his  exposition 
in  1839  and  1851.  According  to  that  the  'Constitution  was  and  is  *  a  com 
pact  between  the  States.'" 

In  this  ingenious  attempt  to  justify  the  secession  that  took 
place  in  1861,  handing  it  down  to  posterity  in  a  history  entitled 
"  The  War  between  the  States,"  instead  of  a  Rebellion  against 
the  Government,  Mr.  Stephens  endeavors  to  enlist  Mr.  Webster 
as  one  of  the  witnesses  in  justification  of  the  action  of  the 
Southern  people. 

Mr.  President,  mere  definition,  or  the  mere  rhetorical  use,  of  a 
word  is  not  always  a  matter  on  which  time  can  be  profitably 
spent.  When  a  man  speaks  of  a  "  compact  "  rhetorically,  when 
he  speaks  of  a  "  continental  empire "  rhetorically,  when  he 
speaks  of  an  "  imperial  republic  "  rhetorically,  or  when,  like  the 
Senator  from  Connecticut,  he  speaks  of  a  "  representative 
republic  of  sovereign  States,"  I  do  not  expect  to  hold  him  very 
closely  to  the  line  of  the  definition ;  and  if  it  were  simply  a 
verbal  or  literary  criticism  as  to  the  manner  in  which  this  man 
or  that  man  happened  in  a  piece  of  public  declamation  to  char 
acterize  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  it  would  not  be 
worth  while  to  spend  the  time  of  the  Senate  upon  it.  But  the 
honorable  Senator  from  Connecticut  knows,  and  all  with  whom 
he  is  associated  in  the  political  revolution  now  attempted  in  this 
country  know,  that  upon  the  line  of  division  involved  in  these 
words  is  waged  the  contest  between  the  two  great  parties  that 
are  contending  for  mastery  in  this  Government ;  that  here  is 
involved  the  true  construction  under  which  this  Government 
is  to  be  administered  —  whether  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  shall  have  the  power  to  uphold  itself,  or  whether  it  shall 
be  the  mere  creature  of  the  States,  living  and  breathing  and 
moving  at  their  will  and  pleasure. 

On  that  line  the  two  political  parties  in  this  country  divide  ; 
and  I  have  never  known  a  more  extraordinary  attempt  —  I 
will  not  say  disingenuous,  for  that  would  imply  motive  — 
I  have  never  known  a  more  extraordinary  attempt  to  twist  and 
turn  and  confound  distinctions  than  the  attempt  to  make  Mr. 
Webster's  speech  at  Capon  Springs  the  basis  on  which  this 


NATIONAL  SOVEREIGNTY.  263 

revelation  of  his  change  of  view  should  be  established.  Both 
Mr.  Stephens  in  his  history  and  the  honorable  Senator  from 
Connecticut  in  his  speech  quoted  from  a  pamphlet  copy  of  Mr. 
Webster's  Capon  Springs  address.  I  thought  I  discovered  when 
the  honorable  Senator  was  speaking,  that  he  was  not  specially 
familiar  with  the  speeches  of  Mr.  Webster.  I  hope  he  will  not 
think  me  scant  in  courtesy  if  I  say  that  I  have  discovered  still 
less  familiarity  now,  because  he  need  not  have  gone  to  Mr. 
Stephens's  history  to  get  these  extracts,  nor  need  he  have 
referred  to  lost  pamphlets  containing  the  whole  speech ;  for  here 
in  the  authentic  life  of  Mr.  Webster,  the  biography  to  which 
Mr.  Webster's  friends  are  willing  to  trust  his  fame,  his  life  by 
George  T.  Curtis,  the  speech  is  given  in  full.  Just  after  that 
speech  was  delivered  this  same  delusion  which  the  Senator 
from  Connecticut  indicates  went  over  all  the  South.  It  was 
everywhere  heralded  in  the  South  that  Mr.  Webster  had  defined 
the  Union  as  "  a  compact,"  and  here  is  what  his  eminent  biog 
rapher  says  in  regard  to  the  report :  — 

"  What  Mr.  Webster  had  said  at  Capon  Springs,  in  speaking  of  one  of 
the  compacts  or  compromises  between  the  northern  and  southern  sections 
of  the  Union,  on  which  the  Constitution  was  founded,  was  at  once  misrepre 
sented  as  a  confirmation  by  him  of  the  doctrine  that  the  Constitution  itself 
is  a  compact  between  sovereign  States,  and  as  drawing  after  it,  as  a  result 
ing  right,  the  right  of  State  secession  from  the  Union.  A  citizen  of  North 
Carolina  accordingly  wrote  to  Mr.  Webster  on  this  subject,  and  received 
from  him  the  following  answer,  which  was  immediately  made  public." 

I  will  not  read  the  whole  of  it,  but  Mr.  Webster  says,  speak 
ing  of  the  Government :  — 

"It  is  not  a  limited  confederation,  but  a  Government;  and  it  proceeds 
upon  the  idea  that  it  is  to  be  perpetual,  like  other  forms  of  Government, 
subject  only  to  be  dissolved  by  revolution." 

"  What  I  said  at  Capon  Springs  was  an  argument  addressed  to  the 
North,  and  intended  to  convince  the  North  that  if  by  its  superiority  of  num 
bers  it  should  defeat  the  operation  of  a  plain,  undoubted  and  undeniable 
injunction  of  the  Constitution,  intended  for  the  especial  protection  of  the 
South,  such  a  proceeding  must  necessarily  end  in  the  breaking  up  of  the 
Government ;  that  is  to  say,  in  a  revolution." 

Here  is  what  Mr.  Webster  in  the  speech  itself  said  in  review 
ing  the  condition  of  public  sentiment  then  threatening  the 
revolution  which  was  ten  years  later  attempted ;  and  here  is 


261  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

what  Mr.  Stephens  is  careful  not  to  quote,  and  what  therefore 
my  honorable  friend  from  Connecticut  could  not  have  been 
expected  to  quote  in  his  speech.  Mr.  Webster  in  referring  to 
the  disunion  movement  found  in  the  South,  the  State-rights 
movement  then  running  wild  through  the  cotton  States, 
said :  — 

"I  make  no  argument  against  resolutions,  conventions,  secession  speeches 
or  proclamations.  Let  these  things  go  on.  The  whole  matter,  it  is  to  be 
hoped,  will  blow  over,  and  men  will  return  to  a  sounder  mode  of  thinking. 
Bui  one  thing,  gentlemen,  be  assured  of,  the  Jirst  step  taken  in  the  programme  of 
secession,  which  shall  be  an  actual  infringement  of  the  Constitution  or  the  laws, 
will  be  promptly  met.  [Great  applause.] 

"  And  I  would  not  remain  an  hour  in  any  administration  that  should  not 
immediately  meet  any  such  violation  of  the  Constitution  and  the  law  effect 
ually  and  at  once.  [Prolonged  applause.]  " 

Mr.  Stephens  does  not  quote  that.  But  how  absurd,  Mr. 
President,  how  unjust  is  it  to  catch  up  a  chance  remark  at  a 
watering-place  for  the  purpose  of  justifying  a  certain  section  of 
this  country  which  drifted  into  war  in  support  of  a  bad  theory 
and  which  is  drifting  back  into  that  theory  as  fast  as  it  can ! 
How  absurd,  how  unjust  is  it  to  pick  up  a  chance  speech 
delivered  in  answer  to  a  serenade,  as  the  conclusive  Constitu 
tional  opinions  of  Mr.  Webster,  when  Mr.  Webster  himself  had 
left  in  the  very  last  year  of  his  life,  and  after  that  speech  was 
delivered,  six  volumes  of  his  works  on  which  he  desired  to  go 
down  to  posterity,  on  which  he  rested  his  fame,  and  on  which 
he  inscribed  formal  introductions.  From  these  volumes  I  quote 
the  following  :  — 

"  The  principles  and  opinions  expressed  in  these  productions  are  such  as 
I  believe  to  be  essential  to  the  preservation  of  the  Union,  the  maintenance 
of  the  Constitution,  and  the  advancement  of  the  country  to  still  higher 
stages  of  prosperity  and  renown.  These  objects  have  constituted  my  polar 
star  during  the  whole  of  my  political  life,  which  has  now  extended  through 
more  than  half  the  period  of  the  existence  of  the  Government." 

On  these  speeches,  delivered  by  Mr.  Webster  in  the  Senate 
and  in  the  House  and  on  great  public  occasions,  revised  by 
himself,  published  under  his  auspices,  he  committed  himself  to 
history  ;  and  from  these  neither  Mr.  Stephens  in  his  mischiev 
ous  narrative  nor  the  honorable  Senator  from  Connecticut  in 
his  remarks  ventures  to  quote  any  thing  at  all.  You  can  hardly 
open  a  solitary  page  in  the  whole  six  volumes  that  does  not 


NATIONAL  SOVEREIGNTY.  265 

contain  a  startling  refutation  of  all  the  theories  which  they  now 
pretend  Mr.  Webster  had  admitted  in  the  closing  days  of  his 
life.  Let  me  take  one  instance  at  random. 

In  some  very  brief  remarks  that  I  made  the  other  afternoon 
when  the  bill  which  the  President  vetoed  was  about  to  be  voted 
upon,  I  stated  that  the  Democratic  party  of  to-day  as  repre 
sented  in  this  Chamber  were  the  followers  of  the  State-rights 
school  of  Democracy  represented  by  Mr.  Calhoun  and  Mr. 
Breckinridge.  I  believe  I  was  correct  in  that  statement.  I 
believe  I  was  quite  within  the  facts.  I  read  now  from  Mr. 
Calhoun's  own  definition  in  his  celebrated  discussion  with  Mr. 
Webster,  and  I  think  the  resolution  exactly  fits  and  fills  the 
idea  of  the  Senator  from  Connecticut  as  to  the  true  theory  of 
this  Government  if  I  understood  him  aright.  Mr.  Calhoun 
submitted  the  following :  — 

"  Resolved,  That  the  people  of  the  several  States  composing  these  United 
States  are  united  as  parties  to  a  Constitutional  compact  to  which  the  people 
of  each  State  acceded  as  a  separate  sovereign  community,  each  binding  itself 
by  its  own  particular  ratification  ;  and  that  the  Union,  of  which  the  said 
compact  is  the  bond,  is  a  Union  between  the  States  ratifying  the  same." 

That  is  the  Democratic  theory  to-day.  I  doubt  if  there  is  a 
senator  on  the  other  side  of  the  Chamber  who  will  controvert 
these  words  of  Mr.  Calhoun  :  the  Senator  from  Connecticut 
asserts  the  same  doctrine  in  terms.  Mr.  Calhoun  proceeds  in 
a  long  series  of  resolutions  to  disprove  the  proposition  that 
we  constitute  "a  Nation."  In  answer,  Mr.  Webster  after  an 
elaborate  speech  sums  up  and  says :  — 

"  And  now,  sir,  against  all  these  theories  and  opinions,  I  maintain  — 
"  1.  That  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  not  a  league,  confederacy, 
or  compact  between  the  people  of  the  several  States  in  their  sovereign  capa 
cities,  but  a  Government  proper,  founded  on  the  adoption  of  the  people,  and 
creating  direct  relations  between  itself  and  individuals." 

The  honorable  Senator  from  Connecticut  devoted  consider 
able  time  the  other  day  to  showing  that  the  Constitutional 
Convention  in  1787  expressly  excluded  the  idea  that  they  were 
founding  a  nation.  Mr.  Webster  farther  on  in  the  same  speech 

says :  — 

"  But,  sir,  let  us  go  to  the  actual  formation  of  the  Constitution  ;  let  us 
open  the  journal  of  the  convention  itself,  and  we  shall  see  that  the  very  first 
resolution  which  the  convention  adopted  was,  '  that  a  National  government 


266  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

ought  to  be  established,  consisting  of  a  supreme  legislature,  judiciary,  and  execu 
tive.' 

"  This  itself  completely  negatives  all  idea  of  league  and  compact  and 
confederation.  Terms  could  not  be  chosen  more  fit  to  express  an  intention 
to  establish  a  national  government,  and  to  banish  forever  all  notion  of  a 
compact  between  sovereign  States." 

Yet  the  Senator  from  Connecticut  broadly  asserted  that  Mr. 
"Webster  had  made  the  declaration  that  this  Union  was  "a 
compact  of  States  "  just  as  Mr.  Stephens  asserts  it  in  his  mis 
chievous  book. 

Mr.  EATON.  If  my  friend  will  permit  me,  was  not  that 
very  resolution  which  he  has  just  read  voted  down,  and  voted 
down  on  motion  of  Mr.  Ellsworth  of  Connecticut? 

Mr.  ELAINE.  No,  sir ;  instead  of  being  voted  down,  it  was 
voted  up.  I  will  read  what  Mr.  Webster  says :  — 

"  This  resolution  was  adopted  on  the  30th  of  May,  1787.  Afterward  the 
style  was  altered,  and  instead  of  being  called  a  National  government  it  was 
called  the  Government  of  the  United  States;  but  the  substance  of  this 
resolution  was  retained,  and  was  at  the  head  of  that  list  of  resolutions  which 
was  afterwards  sent  to  the  committee  who  were  to  frame  the  instrument." 

Mr.  Webster  continues  :  — 

"  It  is  true,  there  were  gentlemen  in  the  convention,  who  were  for  retain 
ing  the  confederation,  and  amending  its  articles ;  but  the  majority  was 
against  this,  and  was  for  a  National  government. 

44  If,  sir,  any  historical  fact  in  the  world  be  plain  and  undeniable,  it  is  that 
the  convention  deliberated  on  the  expediency  of  continuing  the  confedera 
tion,  with  some  amendments,  and  rejected  that  scheme,  and  adopted  the  plan 
of  a  National  government,  with  a  legislature,  an  executive,  and  a  judiciary 
of  its  own.  They  were  asked  to  preserve  the  league,  they  rejected  the  propo 
sition.  They  were  asked  to  continue  the  existing  compact  between  States, 
they  rejected  it.  They  rejected  compact,  league,  and  confederation,  and  set 
themselves  about  framing  the  constitution  of  a  national  government;  and 
they  accomplished  what  they  undertook." 

In  view  of  these  declarations,  I  do  not  think  the  Senator  from 
Connecticut  or  the  honorable  author  of  that  book  will  wish  to 
quote  Mr.  Webster  as  saying  that  the  Union  was  "  a  compact 
between  States."  The  sense  in  which  Mr.  Webster  did  use 
"  compact "  is  seen  in  his  reference  to  the  ratification  of  the 
Constitution  by  the  several  States. 

He  said,  — 

"  Among  all  the  other  ratifications,  there  is  not  one  which  speaks  of  the 
Constitution  as  a  compact  between  States.  Those  of  Massachusetts  and 
New  Hampshire  express  the  transaction,  in  my  opinion,  with  sufficient 


NATIONAL  SOVEREIGNTY.  267 

accuracy.  They  recognize  the  Divine  goodness  '  in  affording  THE  PEOPLE 
OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  an  opportunity  of  entering  into  an  explicit  and 
solemn  compact  with  each  other,'  by  'assenting  to  and  ratifying  a  new  Constitu 
tion.'  You  will  observe,  sir,  that  it  is  the  people,  and  not  the  States,  who 
have  entered  into  this  compact,  and  it  is  the  people  of  all  the  United 
States." 

I  know  you  will  not  tire  of  hearing  Mr.  Webster.  I  am 
making  a  very  good  speech  out  of  his  works,  far  better  than 
any  thing  I  could  say  myself.  The  honorable  Senator  from 
Connecticut  dwelt  at  length,  and  dwelt  with  that  modest  form 
of  affirmation  which  sometimes  distinguishes  his  utterances, 
upon  the  idea  that  no  man  could  deny  that  it  was  the  States 
that  formed  the  Constitution,  and  he  quoted  as  conclusive  on 
that  point  the  provision  that  it  should  go  into  effect  upon  the 
ratification  of  nine  States.  Mr.  Webster,  in  his  second  speech 
on  Foote's  resolution,  spoke  thus :  — 

"  Sir,  the  opinion  which  the  honorable  gentleman  [Mr.  Calhoun]  main 
tains  is  a  notion  founded  in  a  total  misapprehension,  in  my  judgment,  of 
the  origin  of  this  Government,  and  of  the  foundation  on  which  it  stands. 
I  hold  it  to  be  a  popular  Government,  erected  by  the  people ;  those  who 
administer  it,  responsible  to  the  people ;  and  itself  capable  of  being 
amended  and  modified,  just  as  the  people  may  choose  it  should  be.  It  is  as 
popular,  just  as  truly  emanating  from  the  people,  as  the  State  governments.  It 
is  created  for  one  purpose;  the  Stale  governments  for  another.  It  has  its  own 
powers;  they  have  theirs." 

And  then  Mr.  Webster  adds :  — 

"We  are  here  to  administer  a  Constitution  emanating  immediately  from 
the  people,  and  trusted  by  them  to  our  administration.  It  is  not  the  creature 
of  the  State  governments.  It  is  of  no  moment  to  the  argument,  that  cer 
tain  acts  of  the  State  Legislatures  are  necessary  to  fill  our  seats  in  this 
body.  That  is  not  one  of  their  original  State  powers,  a  part  of  the  sovereignty 
of  the  Slate.  It  is  a  duty  which  the  people,  by  the  Constitution  itself,  'have 
imposed  on  the  State  Legislatures ;  and  which  they  might  have  left  to  be  per 
formed  elsewhere,  if  they  had  seen  fit." 

He  says  in  another  speech :  — 

"  So  much,  sir,  for  the  argument,  even  if  the  premises  of  the  gentleman 
were  granted  or  could  be  proved.  But,  sir,  the  gentleman  has  failed  to 
maintain  his  leading  proposition.  He  has  not  shown,  it  cannot  be  shown, 
that  the  Constitution  is  'a  compact  between  State  governments.  The  Con 
stitution  itself,  in  its  very  front,  refutes  that  idea.  It  declares  that  it  is 
ordained  and  established  by  the  people  of  the  United  States.  ...  So  far 
from  saying  that  it  is  established  by  the  governments  of  the  several  States, 
it  does  not  even  say  that  it  is  established  by  the  people  of  the  several  States ; 
but  it  pronounces  that  it  is  established  by  the  people  of  the  United  States  in 
the  aggregate.  The  gentleman  says  it  must  mean  no  more  than  the  people 


268  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

of  the  several  States.  Doubtless  the  people  of  the  several  States,  taken 
collectively,  constitute  the  people  of  the  United  States;  but  it  is  in  this 
their  collective  capacity,  it  is  as  all  the  people  of  the  United  States,  that 
they  establish  the  Constitution.  So  they  declare,  and  words  cannot  be 
plainer  than  the  words  used. 

"  When  the  gentleman  says  the  Constitution  is  a  compact  between  the 
States  he  uses  language  exactly  applicable  to  the  old  confederation.  He 
speaks  as  if  he  were  in  Congress  before  1789.  He  describes  fully  that  old 
state  of  things  then  existing.  The  confederation  was  in  strictness  a  corn- 
pact;  the  States,  as  States,  were  parties  to  it.  We  had  no  other  general 
government." 

Without  continuing  these  extracts,  Mr.  President,  I  desire 
to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  —  I  hope  I  do  not  overrate 
their  importance  —  to  the  only  occasions  on  which,  besides  this 
Capon  Springs  speech,  which  Mr.  Webster  himself  hastened  to 
correct  by  letter,  Mr.  Stephens  rests  his  extraordinary  charge. 
They  are,  first,  a  letter  which  Mr.  Webster  addressed  when  he 
was  in  London  in  1839  to  Baring  Brothers  &  Co.,  a  most 
respectable  and  eminent  firm  of  British  merchants  and  financial 
agents. 

At  that  time  agents  of  several  States  of  the  Union  were 
in  London  trying  to  negotiate  loans  for  internal  improvements. 
A  doubt  was  suggested  as  to  whether  under  the  Constitutional 
inhibition  that  no  State  could  emit  bills  of  credit  a  State  had 
the  right  to  negotiate  a  loan  by  issuing  bonds,  and  Mr.  Webster 
at  the  request  of  the  merchants  to  whom  I  have  referred  wrote 
an  explanatory  letter.  Because  Mr.  Webster  said  in  explaining 
the  different  powers  of  the  States  and  the  United  States  Gov 
ernment  that  it  had  been  left  to  the  States  to  regulate  their 
own  credit  —  I  need  not  read  the  whole  letter,  it  is  several 
pages  in  length  —  Mr.  Stephens  represents  him  as  acknowledg 
ing  the  sovereignty  of  the  States.  It  was  a  business  letter 
wholly,  and  it  concludes  with  a  word  which  I  think  entirely 
negatives  every  presumption  of  the  mischievous  kind  that  Mr. 
Stephens  endeavored  to  attribute  to  it.  Mr.  Webster  says,  in 
the  closing  paragraph  :  — 

"I  hope  T  may  be  justified  by  existing  circumstances  in  closing  this  letter 
with  the  expression  of  an  opinion  of  a  more  general  nature.  It  is,  that  I 
believe  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  like  all  honest  men,  regard  debts, 
whether  public  or  private,  and  whether  existing  at  home  or  abroad,  to  be  of 
moral  as  well  as  legal  obligation ;  and  I  trust  I  may  appeal  to  their  history, 
from  the  moment  when  those  States  took  their  rank  among  the  nations  of  the 
earth  to  the  present  time,  for  proof  that  this  belief  is  well  founded." 


NATIONAL  SOVEREIGNTY.  209 

In  1838  Mr.  Calhoim  introduced  in  the  Senate  an  elaborate 
series  of  resolutions  affirming  that  the  States  had  never  taken 
any  rank  among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  and  I  believe  the 
honorable  Senator  follows  in  the  wake  of  that  argument. 

Mr.  EATON.  Produce  what  I  say  when  you  assert  that  I 
have  said  that. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  I  have  read  a  great  deal  from  the  Senator 
this  morning,  and  I  will  read  more  before  I  get  through. 

Mr.  EATON.  Perhaps  that  will  be  the  best  part  of  your 
speech  except  what  you  read  from  Webster.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  ELAINE.  I  am  obliged  to  the  Senator  for  the  excep 
tion.  It  is  equalled  only  by  Dogberry's  injunction,  "  Write 
God  first." 

The  other  allegation  of  Mr.  Stephens,  as  I  was  about  to  say, 
is  that  Mr.  Webster,  in  1838,  five  years  after  his  speeches  of 
1833,  had  refused  to  vote  against  these  resolutions  of  Mr. 
Calhoim,  and  that  this  refusal  was  a  very  pregnant  suggestion 
that  he  had  then  changed  his  mind.  He  makes  a  solemn  pre 
sentation  of  the  fact  that  Mr.  Webster  had  not  voted  on  a  series 
of  five  resolutions  which  Mr.  Calhoim  introduced  in  this  body 
in  1838,  involving  all  the  heretical  doctrines  of  the  States-rights, 
pro-slavery  Democracy.  He  does  not  say  that  Mr.  Webster 
voted  for  them,  but  that  he  had  not  voted  against  them.  Those 
resolutions  of  Mr.  Calhoim  were  introduced  in  December,  1837. 
They  were  before  the  Senate,  as  such  resolutions  often  are,  as 
a  foot-ball  for  political  debate,  for  several  months.  On  the  22d 
of  March,  1838,  after  they  had  been  passed  upon  by  the  Senate, 
Mr.  Webster  referred  to  them  as  follows,  in  regard  to  the 
slavery  question :  — 

"  Sir,  this  is  a  very  grave  matter ;  it  is  a  subject  very  exciting  and  inflam 
mable.  I  take,  of  course,  all  the  responsibility  belonging  to  my  opinions; 
but  I  desire  these  opinions  to  be  understood,  and  fairly  stated.  If  I  am  to 
be  regarded  as  an  enemy  to  the  South  because  I  could  not  support  the  gen 
tleman's  resolutions,  be  it  so.  I  cannot  purchase  favors  from  any  quarter 
by  the  sacrifice  of  clear  and  conscientious  convictions.  The  principal  reso 
lution  declared  that  Congress  had  plighted  its  faith  not  to  interfere  either 
with  slavery  or  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  Now,  sir,  this 
is  quite  a  new  idea.  I  never  heard  it  advanced  until  this  session. 

"  On  such  a  question,  sir,  when  I  am  asked  what  the  Constitution  is,  or 
whether  any  power  granted  by  it  has  been  compromised  away,  or,  indeed, 
could  be  compromised  away,  I  must  express  my  honest  opinion,  and  always 


270  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

shall  express  it,  if  I  say  any  thing,  notwithstanding  it  may  not  meet  con 
currence  either  in  the  South,  or  the  North,  or  the  East,  or  the  West.  I 
cannot  express  by  my  vote  what  I  do  not  believe.  The  gentleman  has 
chosen  to  bring  that  subject  into  this  debate,  with  which  it  has  no  concern, 
but  he  may  make  the  most  of  it,  if  he  thinks  he  can  produce  unfavorable 
impressions  against  me  at  the  South  from  my  negative  to  his  fifth  resolution. 
As  to  the  rest  of  them,  they  were  commonplaces  generally  or  abstractions,  in 
regard  to  which  one  may  well  feel  himself  not  called  on  to  vote  at  all." 

With  that  record  before  him  Mr.  Stephens  wrote  that  Mr. 
Webster's  ominous  refusal  to  vote  on  the  resolutions  indicated 
a  change  of  mind,  when  here  was  his  defiant  review  of  the 
whole  subject  of  Mr.  Calhoun's  heresies.  Mr.  Webster  then 
proceeded  with  some  remarks  which  I  am  disposed  to  think 
might  now  be  addressed  to  the  other  side  of  the  Chamber, 
mutatis  mutandis,  and  we  should  hardly  realize  that  forty  years 
had  gone  by.  Let  me  read  a  single  paragraph  —  I  wish  it  were 
original  with  me,  addressed  as  Mr.  Webster  then  addressed  it 
—  to  the  opposite  side  of  the  Chamber. 

"  The  honorable  member  from  Carolina  himself  habitually  indulges  in 
charges  of  usurpation  and  oppression  against  the  Government  of  his  coun 
try.  He  daily  denounces  its  important  measures,  in  the  language  in  which 
our  Revolutionary  fathers  spoke  of  the  oppressions  of  the  mother  country. 
Not  merely  against  executive  usurpation,  either  real  or  supposed,  does  he 
utter  these  sentiments,  but  against  laws  of  Congress,  laws  passed  by  large 
majorities,  laws  sanctioned  for  a  course  of  years  by  the  people.  These  laws 
he  proclaims,  every  hour,  to  be  but  a  series  of  acts  of  oppression.  He 
speaks  of  them  as  if  it  were  an  admitted  fact  that  such  is  their  true  char 
acter.  This  is  the  language  he  utters,  these  are  the  sentiments  he  expresses, 
to  the  rising  generation  around  him.  Are  they  sentiments  and  language 
which  are  likely  to  inspire  our  children  with  the  love  of  union,  to  enlarge 
their  patriotism,  or  to  teach  them,  and  to  make  them  feel,  that  their  destiny 
has  made  them  common  citizens  of  one  great  and  glorious  Republic?  A 
principal  object  in  his  late  political  movements,  the  gentleman  himself 
tells  us,  was  to  unite  (he  entire  South :  and  against  whom  or  against  what 
does  he  wish  to  unite  the  entire  South  ?  Is  not  this  the  very  essence  of  local 
feeling  and  local  regard?  Is  it  not  the  acknowledgment  of  a  wish  and 
object  to  create  political  strength  by  uniting  political  opinions  geographically  ? 

"Finally,  the  honorable  member  declares  that  he  shall  now  march  off 
under  the  banner  of  State  rights.  March  off  from  whom  ?  March  oft'  from 
what  ?  We  have  been  contending  for  great  principles.  We  have  been  strug 
gling  to  maintain  the  liberty  and  to  restore  the  prosperity  of  the  country. 
We  have  made  these  struggles  here,  in  the  National  councils,  with  the  old 
flag  —  the  true  American  flag,  the  eagle  and  the  stars  and  stripes  —  wav 
ing  over  the  Chamber  in  which  we  sit.  He  now  tells  us,  however,  that  he 
marches  off  under  the  State-rights  banner. 

"  Let  him  go.     I  remain.     I  am  where  I  have  ever  been,  and  ei'er  mean  to  be." 

The  lineal  successors  of  Mr.  Webster's  great  Constitutional 
views  can  utter  those  words  to-day  and  direct  them  to  the  same 


NATIONAL  SOVEREIGNTY.  271 

side  of  the  Chamber  at  which  he  aimed  them  forty  years 
ago. 

I  ought  not  to  omit  one  small  point,  because  there  is  one  still 
left  on  which  this  charge  of  Mr.  Webster's  change  of  opinion 
is  based.  I  think  the  Senator  from  Connecticut  intimated  that 
he  would  not  read  the  Mark  A.  Cooper  letter,  although  he  gave 
a  strong  incidental  assurance  that  if  he  did,  it  would  contain  all 
that  he  had  alluded  to  about  Mr.  Webster's  alleged  approving 
reference  to  compact,  or  confederation. 

The  Mark  A.  Cooper  letter  was  a  letter  of  courtesy  in  answer 
to  a  gentleman  of  that  name  at  Macon,  Georgia,  inviting  Mr. 
Webster  to  attend  a  State  fair.  Mr.  Webster  wrote  with  his 
own  felicity  of  language  in  regard  to  agricultural  topics,  and 
toward  the  close  of  the  letter  occurs  the  following :  — 

"  Let  me  take  the  occasion  to  add,  my  dear  sir,  that  as  the  forms  and 
products  of  your  agriculture  are  quite  different  from  ours,  as  your  soil  and 
climate  are  different,  and  as  your  social  and  domestic  institutions  are  also 
different,  it  was  never  intended  by  the  Constitution  under  which  we  live 
that  so  foolish  and  impracticable  a  thing  as  amalgamation,  in  these  respects, 
or  any  of  them,  should  be  attempted  between  Northern  and  Southern  States. 
The  States  are  united,  confederated :  — 

'  Not,  chaos-like,  together  crushed  and  bruised, 
But,  like  the  world,  harmoniously  confused  ; 
Where  order  in  variety  we  see, 
And  where,  though  all  things  differ,  all  agree.'  " 

Could  there  be  a  more  felicitous  illustration  of  the  charac 
ter  of  the  National  Union  than  Mr.  Webster  embodied  in  this 
quotation  ?  It  calls  for  no  explanation :  it  needs  only  to  be 
read.  Its  meaning  cannot  be  changed  by  the  misapprehensions 
of  Mr.  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  nor  can  any  word  Mr.  Webster 
ever  spoke  be  perverted  to  the  comfort  of  the  States-rights 
Democracy. 


EULOGY    OF    SENATOR    CHANDLER. 


[The  Senate  of  the  United  States  on  the  28th  of  January,  1880,  having  under 
consideration  resolutions  of  respect  to  the  memory  of  Honorable  Zachariah 
Chandler,  who  died  on  the  1st  of  November,  1879,  Mr.  Elaine  said,  — ] 

ME.  PRESIDENT,  —  Mr.  Chandler  sprang  from  a  strong  race  of 
men  and  was  reared  in  a  State  which  has  shed  lustre  on  other 
Commonwealths  by  the  gift  of  her  native-born  and  her  native- 
bred.  She  gave  Webster  to  Massachusetts,  Chief  Justice  Chase 
to  Ohio,  General  Dix  to  New  York,  and  Horace  Greeley  to  the 
head  of  American  journalism.  Mr.  Chandler  left  New  Hamp 
shire  before  he  attained  his  majority,  and  with  limited  pecu 
niary  resources  sought  a  home  in  the  inviting  territory  of  the 
North-West.  He  was  endowed  with  great  physical  strength, 
remarkable  powers  of  endurance,  energy  that  could  not  be  over 
taxed,  courage  of  the  highest  order ;  was  imbued  with  princi 
ples  which  throughout  his  life  were  inflexible,  was  intelligent 
and  well  instructed,  and  was  thus  in  all  respects  equipped  for 
a  career  in  the  great  Commonwealth  where  he  lived  and  grew 
and  prospered  and  died. 

For  a  long  period  following  the  second  war  with  Great 
Britain  the  Territory  of  Michigan  was  governed  by  one  of  the 
most  persuasive  and  successful  of  American  statesmen ;  whose 
pure  and  honorable  life,  whose  grace  and  kindness  of  manner, 
and  whose  almost  unlimited  power  in  what  was  then  a  remote 
frontier  Territory,  had  enabled  him  to  mould  the  large  majority 
of  the  earl}'  settlers  to  his  own  political  views.  When  in  1833 
Mr.  Chandler  reached  Detroit  General  Cass  had  left  the  scene 
of  his  long  reign  —  for  reign  it  might  well  be  called  —  to 
assume  control  of  the  War  Department  under  one  of  the  strong 
est  administrations  that  ever  governed  the  country.  The  great 
majority  of  young  men  at  twenty  years  of  age  naturally  drifted 
with  a  current  that  was  so  strong;  but  Mr.  Chandler  had 
inherited  political  principles  which  were  deepened  by  his  own 
convictions  as  he  grew  to  manhood,  and  he  took  his  stand  at 
once  and  firmly  with  the  minority.  He  was  from  the  outset 

272 


EULOGY  OF  SENATOR  CHANDLER.  273 

a  recognized  power  in  the  political  field ;  though  not  until  his 
maturer  years,  with  fortune  attained  and  the  harder  struggles 
of  life  crowned  with  victory,  would  he  consent  to  hold  public 
position.  But  he  was  in  all  the  fierce  conflicts  which  raged  for 
twenty  years  in  Michigan,  and  which  ended  in  changing  the 
political  mastery  of  the  State.  It  is  not  matter  of  wonder  that 
personal  estrangements  occurred  in  such  prolonged  and  bitter 
controversy,  though  often  without  diminution  of  mutual  respect. 
In  one  of  the  most  exciting  periods  of  the  struggle,  General 
Cass  spoke  publicly  of  not  enjoying  the  honor  of  Mr.  Chandler's 
acquaintance.  Three  years  afterward,  as  Mr.  Chandler  de 
lighted  to  tell  with  good-na,tured  and  pardonable  boasting,  he 
carried  to  General  Cass  a  letter  of  introduction  from  the  Gov 
ernor  of  Michigan  which  so  impressed  the  General  that  he 
caused  it  to  be  publicly  read  in  this  Chamber  and  placed  on  the 
permanent  files  of  the  Senate.  It  is  to  the  honor  of  both  these 
great  men  that  complete  cordiality  of  friendship  was  restored, 
and  that  in  the  hour  of  supreme  peril  to  the  nation  which  came 
soon  after,  General  Cass  and  Mr.  Chandler  stood  side  by  side 
maintaining  the  Union  of  the  States  by  the  exercise  of  the  war 
power  of  the  Government.  They  sleep  their  last  sleep  in  the 
same  beautiful  cemetery  near  the  city  which  was  so  long  their 
home,  under  the  soil  of  the  State  which  each  did  so  much  to 
honor,  and  on  the  margin  of  the  Great  Lakes  whose  commercial 
development,  spanned  by  their  lives,  has  been  so  greatly  pro 
moted  by  their  efforts. 

The  anti-slavery  agitation  which  broke  forth  with  violence 
in  1854,  after  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  compromise,  was  soon 
followed  by  partial  re-action,  and  in  1856  Mr.  Buchanan  was 
chosen  to  the  Presidency.  Mr.  Chandler  took  his  seat  for  the 
first  time  in  this  body  on  the  day  of  Mr.  Buchanan's  inaugura 
tion.  It  was  the  first  public  station  he  had  ever  held  except 
the  Mayoralty  of  Detroit  for  a  single  term,  and  the  first  for 
which  he  had  ever  been  a  candidate,  except  in  1852  when  he 
consented  to  lead  the  forlorn  hope  of  the  Whigs  in  the  contest 
for  governor  of  Michigan.  When  he  entered  the  Senate  the 
Democratic  party  bore  undisputed  sway  in  this  Chamber,  hav 
ing  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  entire  body.  The  party  was- 
led  by  aggressive,  able,  uncompromising  men,  who  played  for 


274  EULOGY  OF  SENATOR  CHANDLER. 

a  high  stake  and  who  played  the  bold  game  of  men  who  are 
willing  to  cast  all  upon  the  hazard  of  the  die.  The  party  in 
opposition,  to  which  Mr.  Chandler  belonged,  was  weak  in  num 
bers  but  strong  in  character,  intellect,  and  influence.  Seward, 
with  his  philosophy  of  optimism,  his  deep  study  into  the  work 
ing  of  political  forces,  and  his  affluence  of  rhetoric,  was  its 
accepted  leader.  He  was  sustained  by  Sumner,  with  his  wealth 
of  learning  and  his  burning  zeal  for  the  right ;  by  Fessenden, 
less  philosophic  than  Seward,  less  learned  than  Sumner,  but 
more  logical  and  skilled  o'  fence  than  either ;  by  Wade,  who 
in  mettle  and  make-up  was  a  Cromwellian,  who,  had  he  lived 
in  the  days  of  the  Commonwealth,  would  have  fearlessly  fol 
lowed  the  Protector  in  the  expulsion  of  an  illegal  parliament, 
or  drawn  the  sword  of  the  Lord  and  of  Gideon  to  smite  hip 
and  thigh  the  Amalekites  who  appeared  anew  in  the  persons 
of  the  Cavaliers ;  by  Collamer  wise  and  learned,  pure  and  dig 
nified,  a  conscript  father  in  look  and  in  fact ;  by  John  P.  Hale, 
who  never  faltered  in  his  devotion  to  the  anti-slavery  cause, 
and  who  had  earlier  than  any  of  his  associates  broken  his  alli 
ance  with  the  old  parties  and  given  his  eloquent  voice  to  the 
cause  of  the  despised  Nazarenes ;  by  Trumbull,  acute,  able, 
untiring,  the  first  Republican  senator  from  that  great  State 
which  has  since  added  so  much  to  the  grandeur  and  glory  of 
our  history ;  by  Hamlin,  with  long  training,  with  devoted 
fidelity,  with  undaunted  courage,  who  came  anew  to  the  con 
flict  of  ideas  with  a  State  behind  him,  with  its  faith  and  its 
force,  and  who  alone  of  all  the  illustrious  Senate  of  1857  is 
with  us  to-day ;  by  Cameron,  with  wide  and  varied  experience 
in  affairs,  with  consummate  tact  in  the  government  of  parties, 
whose  active  political  life  began  in  the  days  of  Monroe,  and  who, 
after  a  prolonged  and  stormy  career,  still  survives  by  reason  of 
strength,  at  fourscore,  with  the  attachment  of  his  friends,  the 
respect  of  his  opponents,  the  hearty  good  wishes  of  all. 

Into  association  with  these  men  Mr.  Chandler  entered  when 
in  his  forty-fourth  year.  His  influence  was  felt,  and  felt  power 
fully,  from  the  first  day.  A  writer  at  the  time  said  that  the 
effect  of  Chandler's  coming  was  like  the  addition  of  a  fresh 
division  of  troops  to  an  army  engaged  in  a  hand-to-hand  conflict 
with  an  outnumbering  foe.  He  encouraged,  inspired,  coerced 


EULOGY  OF  SENATOR  CHANDLER.  275 

others  to  do  things  which  he  could  not  do  himself,  but  which 
others  could  not  have  done  without  him.  His  first  four  years 
in  the  Senate  were  passed  in  a  hopeless  minority,  where  a  sense 
of  common  danger  had  banished  rivalry,  checked  jealousy,  and 
produced  that  harmony  and  discipline  which  won  the  most  signal 
of  all  our  political  victories  in  the  election  of  Abraham  Lincoln 
to  the  Presidency.  Changed  by  this  triumph  and  the  startling 
events  which  followed  into  a  majority  party  in  the  Senate,  the 
Republicans  found  many  of  their  oldest  and  ablest  leaders  trained 
only  to  the  duties  of  the  minority,  and  not  fitted  to  assume  with 
grace  and  efficiency  the  task  of  administrative  leadership.  They 
had  been  so  long  studying  the  science  of  attack  that  they  were 
aAvkward  when  they  felt  the  need  and  assumed  the  responsibility 
of  defense.  They  were  like  some  of  the  British  regiments  in 
the  campaign  of  Namur,  of  whom  William  of  Orange  said  theie 
was  no  fortress  of  the  French  that  could  resist  them,  and  none 
that  was  safe  in  their  hands. 

It  was  from  this  period  that  Mr.  Chandler  became  more 
widely  known  to  the  whole  country  —  achieving  almost  at  a 
single  bound  what  we  term  a  National  reputation.  His  defiant 
attitude  in  the  presence  of  the  impending  danger  of  war ;  his 
superb  courage  under  the  doubts  and  reverses  of  that  terrible 
struggle  between  brethren  of  the  same  blood ;  his  readiness  to 
do  all  things,  to  dare  all  things,  to  endure  all  things  for  the  sake 
of  victory  to  the  Union;. his  ardent  support  of  Mr.  Lincoln's 
administration  in  every  war  measure  which  they  proposed ;  his 
quickness  to  take  issue  with  the  administration  when  he  thought 
a  great  campaign  was  about  to  be  ruined  by  what  was  termed 
the  Fabian  policy ;  his  inspiring  presence,  his  burning  zeal,  his 
sleepless  vigilance,  his  broad  sympathies,  his  prompt  decision, 
his  eager  patriotism,  his  crowning  faith  in  the  final  result,  all 
combined  to  give  to  Mr.  Chandler  a  front  rank  among  the 
devoted  men  who  in  our  war  history  are  entitled  to  stand  next 
to  those  who  led  the  mighty  conflict  on  the  field  of  battle. 

To  portray  Mr.  Chandler's  career  for  the  ten  consecutive 
years  after  the  war  closed  would  involve  too  close  a  reference 
to  exciting  questions  still  in  some  sense  at  issue.  But  in  that 
long  period  of  service  and  in  the  shorter  one  that  immediately 
preceded  his  death,  those  who  knew  him  well  could  observe  a 


276  EULOGY  OF  SENATOR  CHANDLER. 

constant  intellectual  growth.  He  was  fuller  and  stronger  and 
abler  in  conference  and  in  debate  the  last  year  of  his  life  than 
ever  before.  He  entered  the  Senate  originally  without  practice 
in  parliamentary  discussion.  He  left  it  one  of  the  most  forcible 
as  well  as  most  fearless  antagonists  that  could  be  encountered 
in  this  Chamber.  His  methods  were  learned  here.  He  was 
plain  and  yet  eloquent ;  aggressive  and  yet  careful ;  brave  with 
out  showing  bravado.  What  he  knew,  he  knew  with  precision  ; 
the  powers  he  possessed  were  always  at  his  command  and  he 
never  declined  a  challenge  to  the  lists.  "  Here  and  now  "  was 
his  motto,  and  his  entire  senatorial  career  seemed  guided  by 
that  courageous  spirit  which  the  greatest  of  American  senators 
exhibited,  in  the  only  boast  he  ever  made,  when  he  quoted  to 
Mr.  Calhoun  the  classic  defiance  :  — 

Concurritur;  horae 
Momento  cita  mors  venit,  aut  victoria  laeta. 

Mr.  Chandler's  fame  was  enlarged  by  his  successful  adminis 
tration  of  an  important  Cabinet  position.  Called  by  President 
Grant  to  the  head  of  the  Interior  Department  by  telegraphic 
summons,  he  accepted  without  reluctance  and  without  distrust. 
His  positive  and  uncompromising  course  in  the  Senate  for  eigh 
teen  years  had  borne  the  inevitable  fruit  of  many  enmities  as 
well  as  the  rich  reward  of  countless  friends.  The  appointment 
was  severely  criticised  by  many  who,  a  year  later,  were  suffi 
ciently  just  and  magnanimous  to  withdraw  their  harsh  words 
and  bear  generous  testimony  to  his  executive  ability,  his  pains 
taking  industry,  and  his  inflexible  integrity  ;  to  his  admirable 
talent  for  thorough  organization  and  to  his  prompt  and  grace 
ful  dispatch  of  public  business.  What  his  friends  had  before 
known  of  his  character  and  his  capacity  the  chance  of  a  few 
brief  months  in  an  administrative  position  had  revealed  to  the 
entire  country  and  had  placed  in  history. 

It  would  not  be  just  even  in  the  generous  indulgence  con 
ceded  to  eulogy  to  speak  of  Mr.  Chandler  as  a  man  without 
faults.  But  assuredly  no  enemy,  if  there  be  one  above  his 
lifeless  form,  will  ever  say  that  he  had  mean  faults.  They 
were  all  on  the  generous  and  larger  side  of  his  nature.  In 
amassing  his  princely  fortune  he  never  exacted  the  pound  of 


EULOGY  OF  SENATOR  CHANDLER.  277 

flesh ;  he  never  ground  the  faces  of  the  poor ;  he  was  never 
even  harsh  to  an  honest  debtor  unable  to  pay.  His  wealth 
came  to  him  through  his  own  ability,  devoted  with  unremitting 
industry  for  a  third  of  a  century  to  honorable  trade  in  that 
enlarging,  ever-expanding  region,  whose  capacities  and  resources 
he  was  among  the  earliest  to  foresee  and  to  appreciate. 

To  his  friends  Mr.  Chandler  was  devotedly  true.  Like 
Colonel  Benton,  he  did  not  use  the  word  "  friend  "  lightly  and 
without  meaning ;  nor  did  he  ever  pretend  to  be  friendly  to  a 
man  whom  he  did  not  like.  He  never  dissembled.  To  describe 
him  in  the  plain  and  vigorous  Saxon  which  he  spoke  himself — 
he  was  a  warm  friend,  an  honest  hater,  a  hard  hitter. 

In  the  inner  circle  of  home  life,  sacred  almost  from  refer 
ence,  Mr.  Chandler  was  chivalric  in  devotion,  inexhaustible  in 
affection,  and  exceptionally  happy  in  all  his  relations.  What 
ever  of  sternness  there  was  in  his  character,  whatever  of  rough 
ness  in  his  demeanor,  whatever  of  irritability  in  his  temper, 
were  one  and  all  laid  aside  when  he  sat  at  his  own  hearthstone, 
or  dispensed  graceful  and  generous  hospitality  to  unnumbered 
guests.  There  he  was  seen  at  his  best,  and  there  his  friends 
best  love  to  recall  him.  As  Burke  said  of  Lord  Keppel,  he 
was  a  wild  stock  of  pride  on  which  the  tenderest  of  hearts 
had  grafted  the  milder  virtues. 

A  sage  whose  words  have  comforted  many  generations  of 
men  tells  us  that  when  death  comes  every  one  can  see  its  de 
plorable  and  grievous  side ;  only  the  wise  can  see  causes  for 
reconcilement.  Let  us  be  wise  to-day  and  celebrate  the  memory 
of  a  man  who  stood  on  the  confines  of  age  without  once  feel 
ing  its  weakness  or  realizing  its  decay  ;  who  passed  sixty-six 
years  in  this  world  without  losing  a  single  day  of  mental 
activity  or  physical  strength ;  who  had  a  business  career  of 
unbroken  prosperity ;  who  had  attained  a  fourth  election  to  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States,  an  honor  enjoyed  by  fewer  men  in 
the  Republic  than  even  its  Chief  Rulership,  and  who  strengthen 
ing  with  his  years  stood  higher  in  the  regard  of  his  countrymen, 
firmer  with  his  constituency,  nearer  to  his  friends,  and  dearer  to 
his  kindred,  at  the  close  of  his  career  than  on  any  preceding  day 
of  his  eventful  life. 


278  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


OUGHT     THE     NEGRO     TO     BE     DISFRANCHISED? 
OUGHT    HE    TO    HAVE    BEEN    ENFRANCHISED? 


[The  North  American  Review  of  March,  1880,  contained  a  series  of  articles 
on  these  interrogatories.  The  articles  were  arranged  in  the  form  of  a  discussion 
in  which  Mr.  Elaine  opened  with  the  following  paper.] 

THESE  questions  have  lately  been  asked  by  many  who  have 
been  distinguished  as  the  special  champions  of  the  negro's 
rights  ;  by  many  who  have  devoted  their  lives  to  redressing  the 
negro's  wrongs.  The  questions  owe  their  origin  not  to  any  cool 
ing  of  philanthropic  interest,  not  to  any  novel  or  radical  views 
about  universal  suffrage,  but  to  the  fact  that,  in  the  judgment 
of  many  of  those  hitherto  accounted  wisest,  negro  suffrage  has 
failed  to  attain  the  ends  hoped  for  when  the  franchise  was  con 
ferred  ;  failed  as  a  means  of  more  completely  securing  the 
negro's  civil  rights ;  failed  to  bring  him  the  consideration 
which  generally  attaches  to  power  ;  failed,  indeed,  in  every 
thing  except  to  increase  the  political  weight  and  influence  of 
those  against  whom,  and  in  spite  of  whom,  his  enfranchisement 
was  secured. 

Those  who  have  reached  this  conclusion,  and  those  who  are 
tending  toward  it,  argue  that  the  important  franchise  was  pre 
maturely  bestowed  on  the  negro  ;  that  its  possession  necessarily 
places  him  in  inharmonious  relations  with  the  white  race ;  that 
the  excitement  incident  to  its  free  enjoyment  hinders  him  from 
progress  in  the  rudimentary  and  essential  branches  of  educa 
tion  ;  that  his  advance  in  material  wealth  is  thus  delayed  and 
obstructed ;  and  that  obstacles,  which  would  not  otherwise 
exist,  are  continually  accumulating  in  his  path  —  rendering  his 
progress  impossible  and  his  oppression  inevitable.  In  other 
words,  that  suffrage  in  the  hands  of  the  negro  is  a  challenge  to 


NEGRO   ENFRANCHISEMENT.  279 

the  white  race  for  a  contest  in  which  the  former  is  sure  to  be 
over-matched ;  and  that  the  withdrawal  of  the  franchise  would 
remove  all  conflict,  restore  kindly  relations  between  the  races, 
hold  white  men  to  their  proper  and  honorable  responsibility, 
and  assure  to  each  race  the  largest  prosperity  attainable  in  a 
Government  under  which  both  are  compelled  to  live. 

The  class  of  men  w~hose  views  are  thus  hastily  summarized 
do  not  contemplate  the  withdrawal  of  the  suffrage  from  the 
negro  without  a  corresponding  reduction  in  the  representation 
in  Congress  of  the  States  where  the  negro  is  a  large  factor  in 
the  apportionment.  Yet  it  is  quite  probable  that  they  have 
not  given  thought  to  the  difficulty,  or  rather  the  impossibility, 
of  compassing  that  end.  Under  the  Constitution,  as  it  is  now 
construed,  the  diminution  of  representative  strength  could  only 
result  from  the  enactment  by  the  States  of  such  laws  as  would 
disfranchise  the  negro  by  some  educational  or  property  test, 
as  it  is  forbidden  by  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  to  disfranchise 
him  on  account  of  his  race.  But  the  Southern  States  will  not 
do  this,  and  for  two  reasons :  first,  they  will  in  no  event  con 
sent  to  a  reduction  of  representative  strength ;  and,  second, 
they  could  not  make  any  disfranchisement  of  the  negro  that 
would  not  at  the  same  time  disfranchise  a  great  number  of 
whites. 

Another  class  —  mostly  resident  in  the  South,  but  with 
numerous  sympathizers  in  the  North  —  would  be  glad  to  have 
the  negro  disfranchised  on  totally  different  grounds.  Born  and 
reared  with  the  belief  that  the  negro  is  inferior  to  the  white 
man  in  every  thing,  it  is  hard  for  the  class  who  were  masters  at 
the  South  to  endure  any  phase  or  form  of  equality  on  the  part 
of  the  negro.  Instinct  governs  reason,  and  with  the  mass  of 
Southern  people  the  aversion  to  equality  is  instinctive  and 
ineradicable.  The  general  conclusion  with  this  class  would  be 
to  deprive  the  negro  of  voting  if  it  could  be  done  without 
impairing  the  representation  of  their  States,  but  not  to  make 
any  move  in  that  direction  so  long  as  diminished  power  in 
Congress  is  the  constitutional  and  logical  result  of  a  denial  or 
abridgment  of  suffrage.  In  the  mean  while,  seeing  no  mode 
of  legally  or  equitably  depriving  the  negro  of  his  suffrage 
except  with  unwelcome  penalty  to  themselves,  the  Southern 


280  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

States  as  a  whole  —  differing  in  degree  but  the  same  in  effect  — 
have  striven  to  achieve  by  indirect  and  unlawful  means  what 
they  cannot  achieve  directly  and  lawfully.  They  have  as  far 
as  possible  made  negro  suffrage  of  none  effect.  They  have  done 
this  against  law  and  against  justice. 

Having  stated  the  position  of  both  classes  on  this  question,  I 
venture  now  to  give  my  own  views  in  a  series  of  statements  in 
which  I  shall  endeavor  to  embody  both  argument  and  conclu 
sion  :  — 

The  two  classes  I  have  described,  contemplating  the  possible 
or  desirable  disfranchisement  of  the  negro  from  entirely  dif 
ferent  points  of  view,  and  with  entirely  different  aims,  are  both 
and  equally  in  the  wrrong.  The  first  is  radically  in  error  in 
supposing  that  a  disfranchisement  of  the  negro  would  put  him 
in  the  way  of  any  development  or  progress  that  would  in  time 
fit  him  for  the  suffrage.  He  would  instead  grow  more  and  more 
unfit  for  it  from  the  time  the  first  backward  step  should  be 
taken,  and  he  would  relapse,  if  not  into  actual  chattel  slavery, 
yet  into  such  a  dependent  and  defenseless  condition  as  would 
result  in  simply  another  form  of  servitude.  For  the  ballot 
to-day,  imperfectly  enjoyed  as  it  is  by  the  negro,  its  freedom 
unjustly  and  illegally  curtailed,  its  independence  ruthlessly 
marred,  its  purity  defiled,  is  withal  and  after  all,  the  strong 
shield  of  the  race  against  a  form  of  servitude  which  would  pre 
sent  all  the  cruelty  and  none  of  the  alleviations  of  the  old  slave 
system,  whose  destruction  carried  with  it  the  shedding  of  so 
much  innocent  blood. 

—  The  second  class  is  wrong  in  anticipating  even  the  remote 
possibility  of  securing  the  legal  disfranchisement  of  the  negro 
without  a  reduction  of  representation.  Both  sides  have  fenced 
for  position  on  this  question.  But  for  the  clause  regulating 
representation  in  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitu 
tion  the  South  would  to-day  be  wholly  under  the  control,  and 
legally  under  the  control,  of  those  who^  rebelled  against  the 
Union  and  sought  to  erect  the  Confederate  Government ;  — 
the  negroes  being  counted  in  the  apportionment  without  the 
slightest  concession  of  suffrage  to  the  race.  The  Fourteenth 
Amendment  was  designed  to  prevent  this,  and,  if  it  does  not 
succeed  in  preventing  it,  it  is  because  of  evasion  and  violation 


NEGRO   ENFRANCHISEMENT.  281 

of  its  clear  intent  and  of  its  express  provisions.  Those  who 
erected  the  Confederate  Government  may  be  in  exclusive  pos 
session  of  power  throughout  the  South,  but  they  are  not  so 
fairly  and  legally ;  and  they  will  not  be  permitted  to  continue 
in  the  enjoyment  of  political  power  unjustly  seized  —  seized  in 
derogation  and  in  defiance  of  the  rights  not  merely  of  the  negro 
but  of  the  white  man  in  all  other  sections  of  the  country.  In 
justice  cannot  stand  before  exposure  and  argument  and  the 
force  of  public  opinion.  No  sharper  weapons  of  defense  will 
be  required  against  the  wrong  which  now  afflicts  the  South  and 
is  a  scandal  to  the  whole  country. 

But  while  discussing  the  question  of  the  disfranchisement 
of  the  negro,  and  settling  its  justice  or  expediency  according 
to  our  best  discretion,  it  may  be  worth  while  to  look  at  its 
impracticability,  or,  to  state  it  still  more  strongly,  its  impossi 
bility.  Logicians  attach  weight  to  arguments  drawn  ab  incon- 
venienti.  Arguments  must  be  still  more  eogent,  and  conclusions 
still  more  decisive,  when  drawn  ab  impossibili.  The  negro  is 
secure  against  disfranchisement  by  two  Constitutional  Amend 
ments,  and  he  cannot  be  remanded  to  the  non-voting  class 
until  both  these  amendments  are  annulled.  These  amendments 
cannot  be  annulled  until  two-thirds  of  the  Senate  and  two-thirds 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  shall 
propose,  and  a  majority  in  the  Legislatures  or  conventions  of 
three-fourths  of  all  the  States  shall  by  affirmative  vote  approve 
the  annulment.  In  other  words,  the  negro  cannot  be  disfran 
chised  so  long  as  one  vote  more  than  one-third  in  the  United 
States  Senate,  or  one  vote  more  than  one-third  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  shall  be  recorded  against  it;  and  if  these 
securities  and  safeguards  should  give  way,  then  the  disfran 
chisement  could  not  be  effected  so  long  as  a  majority  in  one 
branch  in  the  Legislatures  of  one  State  more  than  a  fourth  of 
all  the  States  should  refuse  to  assent  to  it,  and  refuse  to 
assent  to  a  convention  to  which  it  might  be  referred.  No 
human  right  on  this  continent  is  more  completely  guaranteed 
than  the  right  against  disfranchisement  on  account  of  race, 
color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude,  as  embodied  in  the 
Fifteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

In  enforcement  and   elucidation   of  my  second  point,  it   is 


282  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

of  interest  to  observe  the  rapid  advance  and  development  of 
popular  sentiment  in  regard  to  the  rights  of  the  negro  as  ex 
pressed  in  the  last  three  amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  In  1865  Congress  submitted  the  Thirteenth 
Amendment,  which  merely  gave  the  negro  freedom,  without 
suffrage,  civil  rights,  or  citizenship.  In  1866  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  was  submitted,  declaring  the  negro  to  be  a  citizen, 
but  not  forbidding  the  States  to  withhold  suffrage  from  him  — 
yet  inducing  them  to  grant  it  by  the  provision  that  representa 
tion  in  Congress  should  be  reduced  in  proportion  to  the  exclu 
sion  of  male  citizens  twenty-one  years  of  age  from  the  right  to 
vote,  except  for  rebellion  or  other  crime.  In  1869  the  decisive 
step  was  taken  of  declaring  that  "  the  right  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States  to  vote  shall  not  be  abridged  by  the  United 
States  or  by  any  State  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous 
condition  of  servitude."  A  most  important  provision  in  this 
amendment  is  the  inhibition  upon  the  "  United  States  "  as  well 
as  upon  "any  State ;"  for  it  would  not  be  among  the  impossible 
results  of  a  great  political  revolution,  resting  011  prejudice  and 
reaching  for  power,  that,  in  the  absence  of  this  express  negation, 
the  United  States  might  assume  or  usurp  the  right  to  deprive 
the  negro  of  suffrage,  and  then  the  States  would  not  be  sub 
jected  to  the  forfeiture  of  representation  provided  in  the  Four 
teenth  Amendment  as  the  result  of  the  denial  or  abridgment 
of  suffrage  by  State  authority.  —  In  this  stately  progression  of 
organic  enactments  the  will  of  a  great  people  is  embodied,  and 
its  reversal  would  be  one  of  those  revolutions  which  would  con- 
viilse  social  order  and  endanger  the  authority  of  law.  There 
will  be  no  step  backward,  but  under  the  provision  which  specifi 
cally  confers  on  Congress  the  power  to  enforce  each  amendment 
by  "  appropriate  legislation,"  there  will  be  applied,  from  time  to 
time,  fitfully  perhaps  and  yet  certainly,  the  restraining  and 
correcting  edicts  of  National  authority. 

As  I  have  already  hinted,  there  will  be  no  attempt  made 
in  the  Southern  States  to  disfranchise  the  negro  by  any  of 
those  methods  which  are  still  within  the  power  of  the  State. 
There  is  no  Southern  State  that  would  dare  venture  on  an 
educational  qualification,  because  by«the  last  census  there  were 
more  than  one  million  white  persons  over  fifteen  years  of 


NEGRO  ENFRANCHISEMENT.  283 

age,  in  the  States  lately  slave-holding,  who  could  not  read, 
and  a  still  larger  number  who  could  not  write.  There  was, 
of  course,  a  still  greater  number  of  negroes  of  the  same  ages 
who  could  not  read  or  write ;  but,  in  the  nine  years  that  have 
intervened  since  the  census  was  taken,  there  has  been  a  much 
greater  advance  in  the  education  of  the  negroes  than  in  the 
education  of  the  poor  whites  of  the  South ;  and  to-day  on  an 
educational  qualification  it  is  probable  that,  while  the  propor 
tion  would  be  in  favor  of  the  whites,  the  absolute  exclusion 
of  the  whites  in  some  of  the  States  would  be  nearly  as  great 
as  that  of  the  negroes.  Nor  would  a  property  test  operate  with 
any  greater  advantage  to  the  whites.  The  slave  States  always 
contained  a  large  class  of  very  poor  and  entirely  uneducated 
whites,  and  any  qualification  of  property  that  would  seriously 
diminish  the  negro  vote  would  also  cut  off  a  very  large  number 
of  whites  from  the  suffrage. 

Thus  far  I  have  directed  my  argument  to  the  first  question 
propounded,  "Ought  the  negro  to  be  disfranchised?"  The 
second  interrogatory,  "  Ought  he  to  have  been  enfranchised?" 
is  not  practical  but  speculative.  Yet,  unless  it  can  be  an 
swered  with  confidence  in  the  affirmative,  the  moral  tenure  of 
his  suffrage  is  weakened,  and,  as  a  consequence,  his  legal  right 
to  enjoy  it  is  impaired.  For  myself  I  answer  the  second  ques 
tion  in  the  affirmative,  with  as  little  hesitation  as  I  answered 
the  first  in  the  negative.  If  the  question  were  again  sub 
mitted  to  the  judgment  of  Congress,  I  would  vote  for  suffrage 
in  the  light  of  experience  with  more  confidence  than  I  voted  for 
it  in  the  light  of  an  experiment.  Had  the  franchise  not  been 
bestowed  upon  the  negro  as  his  shield  and  weapon  of  defense, 
the  demand  upon  the  General  Government  to  interfere  for  his 
protection  would  have  been  constant,  irritating  and  embar 
rassing.  Great  complaint  has  been  made  for  years  past  of  the 
Government's  interference,  simply  to  secure  to  the  colored  citi 
zen  his  plainest  Constitutional  right.  But  this  intervention  has 
been  trifling  compared  to  that  which  would  have  been  required 
if  we  had  not  given  suffrage  to  the  negro.  In  the  reconstruction 
experiments  under  President  Johnson's  plan,  before  the  negro 
was  enfranchised,  it  was  clearly  foreshadowed  that  he  was  to  be 
dealt  with  as  one  having  no  rights  except  such  as  the  whites 


284  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

should  choose  to  grant.  The  negro  was  to  work  according  to 
labor  laws ;  freedom  of  movement  and  transit  was  to  be  denied 
him  by  the  operation  of  vagrant  laws ;  liberty  to  sell  his  time 
and  his  skill  at  their  market  value  was  to  be  restrained  by 
apprentice  laws ;  and  the  slavery  that  was  abolished  by  the 
Constitution  of  a  Nation  was  to  be  revived  by  the  enactment 
of  a  State.  To  counteract  these  and  all  like  efforts  at  re-en 
slavement,  the  National  authority  would  have  been  constantly 
invoked ;  interference  in  the  most  positive  and  peremptory 
manner  would  have  been  demanded,  and  angry  conflict  and 
possibly  resistance  to  law  would  have  resulted.  The  one  sure 
mode  to  remand  the  States  that  rebelled  against  the  Union  to 
their  autonomy  was  to  give  suffrage  to  the  negro  ;  and  that 
autonomy  will  be  complete,  absolute  and  unquestioned  when 
ever  the  rights  that  are  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
Republic  shall  be  enjoyed  in  every  State  —  as  the  administration 
of  justice  was  assured  in  Magna  Charta  —  "  promptly  and  with 
out  delay ;  freely  and  without  sale ;  completely  and  without 
denial." 


[Messrs.  L.  Q.  C.  LAMAR,  WADE  HAMPTON,  JAMES  A.  GARFIELD, 
ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS,  WENDELL  PHILLIPS,  MONTGOMERY  BLAIR, 
THOMAS  A.  HENDRICKS,  followed  with  a  series  of  papers  in  reply.  Mr. 
BLAINE  rejoined  with  the  following  paper.] 


AT  the  instance  of  the  editor  of  the  North  American  Review, 
and  not  by  request  or  desire  of  mine,  the  brief  article  which  I 
wrote  in  regard  to  negro  suffrage  was  submitted  to  the  gentle 
men  who  have  replied  to  it,  and  in  turn  their  articles  have  been 
submitted  to  me.  I  have  now  the  privilege  of  rejoinder,  and 
the  whole  series  of  papers  thus  assumes  the  phase  of  a  con 
nected  discussion. 

With  the  exception  of  Mr.  Wendell  Phillips  and  General 
Garfield,  the  replies  are  from  gentlemen  identified  with  the 
Democratic  party,  and  distinguished  and  influential  in  its  coun 
cils.  General  Garfield  is  a  Republican,  and  has  taken  prom 
inent  and  honorable  part  in  all  the  legislation  respecting  negro 
suffrage.  His  views  are  so  entirely  in  harmony  with  my  own 
that  nothing  is  left  me  but  to  commend  his  admirable  statement 


NEGRO  ENFRANCHISEMENT.  285 

of  the  case.  Mr.  Phillips  is  neither  a  Republican  nor  a  Demo 
crat,  but  reserves  to  himself  the  right  —  a  right  most  freely 
exercised  —  to  criticise  and  condemn  either  party  with  unspar 
ing  severity,  generally  bestowing  his  most, caustic  denunciation 
upon  the  party  to  which  he  most  inclines.  It  is  by  this  sign 
that  we  feel  occasionally  comforted  with  the  reflection  that  Mr. 
Phillips  still  has  sympathies  with  the  Republican  party,  and 
still  indulges  aspirations  for  its  ultimate  success. 

The  arraignment  of  the  Republicans  at  this  late  day  by  Mr. 
Phillips,  because  they  did  not  reduce  the  Confederate  States 
to  Territories  and  govern  them  by  direct  exercise  of  Federal 
power,  is  causeless  and  unjust ;  and  it  cannot  certainly  influence 
the  judgment  of  any  man  whose  memory  goes  back  to  1866—67. 
For  I  assume  that  if  any  thing,  not  capable  of  demonstration, 
is  yet  an  absolute  certainty,  it  is  that  such  an  attempt  by 
the  Republican  party  would  have  led  to  its  utter  overthrow  at 
the  initial  point  of  its  Reconstruction  policy.  The  overthrow 
of  the  Republican  party  at  that  time  would  have  restored  the 
Confederate  States  to  full  power  in  the  Union  without  the 
imposition  of  a  single  condition,  without  the  exaction  of  a 
single  guaranty.  The  inestimable  provisions  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  would  have  been  lost :  its  broad  and  comprehen 
sive  basis  of  citizenship ;  its  clause  regulating  representation  in 
Congress  and  coercing  the  States  into  granting  suffrage  to  the 
negro  ;  its  guaranty  of  the  validity  of  the  war  debt  of  the 
Union  and  of  pensions  to  its  soldiers  and  their  widows  and 
orphans  ;  its  inhibition  of  any  tax  by  General  or  State  Govern 
ment  for  debts  incurred  in  aid  of  the  rebellion  or  for  the  eman 
cipation  of  any  slave !  These  great  achievements  for  liberty, 
in  addition  to  the  Fifteenth  Amendment,  would  have  been  put 
to  hazard  and  probably  lost,  could  Mr.  Phillips  have  had  his 
way,  in  a  vain  struggle  to  reduce  eleven  States  —  four  of  them 
belonging  to  the  original  thirteen  —  to  the  condition  of  Terri 
tories.  Mr.  Phillips  would  thus  have  committed  the  General 
Government  to  a  policy  as  arbitrary  and  as  sure  to  lead  to 
corruption  and  tyranny  as  the  proconsular  system  of  Rome. 

As  if  the  territorial  policy  were  not  enough  to  have  de 
stroyed  the  Republican  party  at  that  time,  Mr.  Phillips  would 
have  plunged  us  into  the  wild,  visionary,  and  unconstitutional 


286  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

scheme  of  confiscating  the  land  of  the  rebels  and  giving  it  to  the 
freedmen.  Confiscation  laws  were  passed  by  Congress  during 
the  hottest  period  of  the  war  ;  but  even  then,  when  passions 
were  at  the  highest,  no  enactment  was  proposed  which  did  not 
recognize  the  express  limitation  of  the  Constitution  that  in 
punishing  treason  there  should  be  no  "  forfeiture  except  during 
the  life  of  the  person  attainted."  The  Republican  party  has 
been  flippantly  accused  by  its  opponents  of  disregarding  the 
Constitution,  but  I  venture  to  say  that  there  is  no  parallel  in 
the  world  to  so  strict  an  observance  of  written  law  during  a 
critical  contest  as  was  shown  by  the  Republicans  throughout 
the  protracted  and  bloody  struggle  that  involved  the  fate  of 
free  government  on  this  continent.  It  is  impossible,  therefore, 
that  the  Republican  party  could  have  adopted  the  policy  which 
Mr.  Phillips  commends ;  and  impossible  that  it  could  have 
succeeded  if  the  attempt  had  been  made. 

Of  the  replies  made  by  the  other  gentlemen,  identified  as 
they  have  been  and  are  with  the  Democratic  party,  it  is  note 
worthy  that,  with  the  exception  of  Mr.  Blair,  they  agree  that 
the  negro  ought  not  to  be  disfranchised.  As  all  these  gentle 
men  were  hostile  to  the  enfranchisement  of  the  race,  their  pres 
ent  position  must  be  taken  as  a  great  step  forward,  and  as  an 
attestation  of  the  wisdom  and  courage  of  the  Republican  party 
at  the  time  they  were  violently  opposing  its  measures.  This 
general  expression  leaves  Mr.  Blair  to  be  treated  as  an  excep 
tion,  and  for  many  of  his  averments  the  best  answer  is  to  be 
found  in  the  suggestions  and  concessions  of  his  Democratic 
associates,  I  need  not  make  an  elaborate  reply  to  Mr.  Blair, 
when  he  is  answered  with  such  significance  and  such  point  by 
those  of  his  own  political  household.  It  is  one  of  the  curious 
developments  of  political  history  that  a  man  who  sat  in  the 
Cabinet  of  Abraham  Lincoln  and  was  present  when  Emancipa 
tion  was  decreed  should  live  to  write  a  paper  against  the  enfran 
chisement  of  the  negro,  when  the  Vice-President  of  the  Rebel 
Confederacy  and  two  of  its  most  distinguished  officers  are 
taking  the  other  side  ! 

Of  Governor  Hampton's  paper  it  is  fair  to  say  that  it  seems 
to  have  been  written  to  cover  a  case.  Its  theory  and  applica 
tion  are  adapted  to  the  latitude  of  South  Carolina,  and  to 


NEGRO   ENFRANCHISEMENT.  287 

his  own  political  course.  Mr.  Hampton  is  a  man  of  strong 
parts,  possessing  courage  and  executive  force,  but  he  has  been 
in  the  thick  of  the  fight,  and  has  had  personal  ambitions  to 
gratify  which  may  not  place  him  in  history  as  an  impartial 
witness.  His  personality  protrudes  at  every  point,  and  his 
conception  of  what  should  be  done  and  what  should  be  undone 
at  the  South  is  precisely  what  is  included  in  his  own  career. 
When  Mirabeau  was  describing  all  the  great  qualities  that 
should  distinguish  a  popular  leader,  the  keenest  of  French  wits 
said  he  "  had  forgotten  to  add  that  he  should  be  pock-marked." 

Mr.  Lamar  offers  a  contrast  to  Governor  Hampton.  He  gen 
eralizes  and  philosophizes  with  great  ability,  and  presents  the 
strange  combination  of  a  "  refined  speculatist "  and  a  trustful 
optimist  —  embodying  some  of  the  characteristics  of  Mr.  Cal- 
houn  whom  he  devoutly  followed,  and  of  Mr.  Seward  whom  he 
always  opposed.  Mr.  Lamar  is  the  only  man  in  public  life  who 
can  be  praised  in  New  England  for  a  warm  eulogy  of  Charles 
Sumner,  and  immediately  afterward  be  elected  to  the  Senate  as 
the  representative  of  the  "white-line"  Democrats  of  Mississippi. 
Yet,  inconsistent  as  these  positions  are,  it  is  the  dream  of  Mr. 
Lamar's  life  to  reconcile  them.  He  is  intensely  devoted  to 
the  South ;  he  has  generous  aspirations  for  the  Union  of  the 
States ;  he  is  shackled  with  the  narrowing  dogma  of  State 
rights,  and  yet  withal  has  boundless  hopes  for  an  Imperial  Re 
public  whose  power  shall  lead  and  direct  the  civilization  of 
the  world.  Hedged  in  by  opposing  theories,  embarrassed  by 
forces  that  seem  irreconcilable,  Mr.  Lamar,  probably  more 
than  any  other  man  of  the  Democratic  party,  gives  anxious 
and  inquiring  thought  to  the  future. 

Of  Mr.  Stephens  and  Mr.  Hendricks  it  may  be  said  that  in 
their  treatment  of  the  question,  one  aims  to  vindicate  the 
course  of  his  native  Georgia ;  the  other  to  gain  some  advantage 
for  the  Democratic  party  of  the  Nation.  Mr.  Stephens  has  the 
mind  of  a  metaphysician,  led  astray  sometimes  in  his  logic 
and  sometimes  in  his  facts,  but  aiming  always  to  promote  the 
interest  of  the  State  to  which  he  is  devoted.  Mr.  Hendricks 
is  an  accomplished  political  leader,  with  large  experience,  pos 
sessed  of  tact  and  address,  and  instinctively  looking  at  every 
public  question  from  its  relation  to  the  fate  and  fortune  of  his 


288  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

party.  Mr.  Stephens  argues  from  the  condition  of  Georgia. 
Mr.  Hendricks  has  in  view  the  Democracy  of  the  nation. 

These  Democratic  leaders  unite  in  upholding  the  suffrage  of 
the  negro  under  existing  circumstances,  but  each  with  an  obvi 
ous  feeling  that  some  contradiction  is  to  be  reconciled,  some 
record  to  be  amended,  some  consistency  to  be  vindicated. 
They  all  unite,  however,  on  the  common  ground  of  denouncing 
the  men  who  controlled  the  negro  vote  at  the  outset  in  the 
interest  of  the  Republican  party.  The  underlying  conclusion, 
not  expressed  but  implied,  is  that  if  the  military  force  had 
been  absent  and  the  persuasion  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  had 
not  been  applied,  the  negroes  would  have  flocked,  as  doves 
to  their  windows,  to  the  outstretched  and  protecting  arms  of 
the  Democratic  party.  This  seems  to  be  sheer  recklessness 
of  assumption  ;  the  very  bravado  of  argument.  Why  should 
the  negro  have  been  disposed  to  vote  with  the  Democratic 
party?  Mr.  Hendricks  says  he  was  made  to  feel  that  "he 
owed  servitude  to  a  party  through  the  agency  of  United  States 
officials  and  the  Freedmen's  Bureau."  But  can  Mr.  Hendricks 
give  any  possible  reason  why  the  negro  should  have  voted  with 
the  Democratic  party  at  that  time  ?  Does  not  the  record  of 
Mr.  Hendricks  himself  as  the  leader  of  the  Democratic  party 
in  the  Senate  show  the  most  conclusive  reasons  why  the  negro 
should  have  voted  with  the  Republicans? 

Mr.  Hendricks  argued  and  voted  in  the  Senate  against  eman 
cipating  the  negro  from  helpless  slavery  ;  when  made  free,  Mr. 
Hendricks  argued  and  voted  against  making  him  a  citizen; 
citizenship  conferred,  Mr.  Hendricks  argued  and  voted  against 
bestowing  suffrage  ;  and  he  argued  and  voted  against  confer 
ring  upon  the  negro  the  most  ordinary  civil  rights,  even  in 
veighing  in  the  Senate  against  giving  to  colored  men  who  were 
eligible  to  seats  in  Congress  the  simple  privilege  of  a  seat  in 
the  horse-cars  of  Washington  in  common  with  white  men. 
If  we  concede  to  the  negro  the  ordinary  instincts  and  preju 
dices  of  human  nature,  it  must  have  required  the  combined 
and  energetic  action  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau,  the  Federal 
officers  and  the  United  States  Army  t®  hold  him  back  from  his 
impulsive  and  irrepressible  desire  to  vote  with  Mr.  Hendricks 
and  the  Democratic  party  ! 


NEGRO  ENFRANCHISEMENT.  289 

I  do  not  use  this  argumentum  ad  hominem  in  any  personal  or 
offensive  sense  toward  Mr.  Hendricks.  His  position  was  not 
different  from  his  associates  and  his  followers  in  the  Demo 
cratic  party  on  all  the  questions  where  I  have  referred  to  his 
votes  and  his  speeches.  Mr.  Lamar  occupied  the  same  ground 
practically ;  so  did  Mr.  Stephens  and  Governor  Hampton. 
Indeed,  the  entire  Democratic  party  opposed  legislation  for 
the  amelioration  of  the  negro's  condition  at  every  step,  and 
opposed  it  not  with  the  mere  registry  of  negative  votes,  but 
with  an  energetic  hostility  that  too  often  assumed  the  phase 
of  anger  and  acrimony.  Emancipation  from  slavery,  grant  of 
citizenship  and  civil  rights,  conferring  of  suffrage,  were  all 
carried  for  the  negro  by  the  Republicans  against  a  protesting 
and  resisting  Democracy.  Democratic  senators  and  representa 
tives  in  Congress  fought  all  these  measures  with  unflagging 
zeal.  In  State  Legislatures,  on  the  stump,  in  the  partisan 
press,  through  all  the  agencies  that  influence  and  direct  public 
opinion,  the  Democrats  showed  implacable  hostility  to  each 
and  every  step  that  was  taken  toward  elevating  the  negro  to  a 
better  condition.  It  was  inevitable  therefore  that  the  negro 
who  had  sense  enough  to  feel  that  he  was  free,  who  had  percep 
tion  enough  to  know  that  he  was  a  citizen,  who  had  pride 
enough  to  realize  that  he  was  a  voter,  felt  and  knew  and  real 
ized  that  these  great  enfranchisements  had  been  conferred  upon 
him  by  the  persistent  energy  of  the  Republican  party,  and  in 
spite  of  the  efforts  of  an  embittered  and  united  Democracy.  Is 
further  statement  necessary  to  explain  why  the  negro  should 
have  cast  his  vote  for  the  Republican  party  when  a  free  ballot 
was  in  his  hands  ?  It  can  be  readily  understood  why  he  may 
now  cast  a  vote  for  the  Democratic  party  when  he  is  no  longer 
allowed  freedom  of  choice,  when  he  is  no  longer  master  of  his 
own  ballot. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Republicans  were  urged 
and  hastened  to  measures  of  amelioration  for  the  negro  by 
very  dangerous  developments  in  the  Southern  States  looking 
to  his  re-enslavement,  in  fact  if  not  in  form.  The  year  that 
followed  the  accession  of  Andrew  Johnson  to  the  Presidency 
was  full  of  anxiety  and  of  warning  to  all  lovers  of  justice, 
to  all  who  hoped  for  "  a  more  perfect  union "  of  the  States. 


290  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

In  nearly  every  one  of  the  Confederate  States  the  white  in 
habitants  assumed  that  they  were  to  be  restored  to  the  Union 
with  their  State  governments  precisely  as  they  were  when  they 
seceded  in  1861,  and  that  the  organic  change  created  by  the 
Thirteenth  Amendment  might  be  practically  set  aside  by  State 
legislation.  In  this  belief  they  exhibited  their  policy  toward 
the  negro.  Considering  all  the  circumstances,  it  would  be  hard 
to  find  in  history  a  more  causeless  and  cruel  oppression  of  a 
whole  race  than  was  embodied  in  the  legislation  of  those 
revived  and  unreconstructed  State  governments.  Their  mem 
bership  was  composed  wholly  of  the  "ruling  class,"  as  they 
termed  it,  and  in  no  small  degree  of  Confederate  officers  below 
the  rank  of  brigadier-general,  who  sat  in  the  Legislature  in  the 
very  uniforms  which  had  distinguished  them  as  enemies  of 
the  Union  upon  the  battle-field.  Limited  space  forbids  my 
transcribing  the  black  code  wherewith  they  loaded  their  stat 
ute-books.  In  Mr.  Lamar's  State  the  negroes  were  forbidden, 
under  very  severe  penalties,  "  to  keep  fire-arms  of  any  kind ;  " 
they  were  apprenticed,  if  minors,  to  labor;  preference  being 
given  by  the  statute  to  their  "  former  owners."  Grown  men 
and  women  were  compelled  to  let  their  labor  by  contract,  the 
decision  of  whose  terms  was  wholly  in  the  hands  of  the  whites; 
and  those  who  failed  to  contract  were  to  be  seized  as  "va 
grants,"  heavily  fined,  and  their  labor  sold  by  the  sheriff  at 
public  outcry  to  the  highest  bidder.  The  terms  "  master  "  and 
"  mistress  "  continually  recur  in  the  statutes,  and  the  slavery 
that  was  thus  instituted  was  of  a  more  degrading,  merciless, 
and  mercenary  type  than  that  which  was  blotted  out  by  the 
Thirteenth  Amendment. 

South  Carolina,  whose  moderation  and  justice  are  so  highly 
praised  by  Governor  Hampton,  enacted  a  code  still  more  cruel 
than  that  I  have  quoted  from  Mississippi.  Fire-arms  were  for 
bidden  to  the  negro,  and  any  violation  of  the  statute  was  pun 
ished  by  "  a  fine  equal  to  twice  the  value  of  the  weapon  so 
unlawfully  kept,"  and,  "if  that  be  not  immediately  paid,  by 
corporeal  punishment."  It  was  further  provided  that  "no  per 
son  of  color  shall  pursue  or  practice  the  art,  trade,  or  business 
of  an  artisan,  mechanic,  or  shopkeeper,  or  any  other  trade  or 
employment  (besides  that  of  husbandry  or  that  of  a  servant 


NEGRO  ENFRANCHISEMENT.  291 

under  contract  for  labor),  until  he  shall  have  obtained  a  license 
from  the  Judge  of  the  District  Court,  which  license  shall  be 
good  for  one  year  only."  If  the  license  was  granted  to  the 
negro  to  be  a  shopkeeper  or  peddler,  he  was  compelled  to  pay 
one  hundred  dollars  per  annum  for  it,  and  if  he  pursued  the 
rudest  mechanical  calling  he  could  do  so  only  by  the  payment 
of  a  license  fee  of  ten  dollars  per  annum.  No  such  fees  were 
exacted  of  the  whites,  or  of  free  blacks  during  the  era  of 
slavery.  The  negro  was  thus  hedged  in  on  all  sides ;  he  was 
down  and  he  was  to  be  kept  down,  and  the  chivalric  race  that 
denied  him  a  fair  and  honest  competition  in  the  humblest 
mechanical  pursuits  were  loud  in  their  assertions  of  his  inferior 
ity  and  his  incompetency. 

But  it  was  reserved  for  Louisiana  to  outdo  both  South  Caro 
lina  and  Mississippi  in  this  infamous  legislation.  In  that  State 
all  agricultural  laborers  were  compelled  to  make  labor  contracts 
during  the  first  ten  days  of  January,  for  the  next  year.  The 
contract  once  made,  the  laborer  was  not  to  be  allowed  to  leave 
his  place  of  employment  during  the  year  except  upon  conditions 
not  likely  to  occur  and  easily  prevented.  The  master  was 
allowed  to  make  deductions  of  the  servants'  wages  for  "  injuries 
done  to  animals  and  agricultural  implements  committed  to  his 
care,"  thus  making  the  negroes  responsible  for  wear  and  tear. 
Deductions  were  to  be  made  for  "  bad  or  negligent  work,"  the 
master  being  the  judge.  For  every  act  of  "  disobedience  "  a  fine 
of  one  dollar  was  imposed  on  the  offender ;  disobedience  being 
a  technical  term  made  to  include,  besides  "  neglect  of  duty," 
and  "  leaving  home  without  permission,"  such  fearful  offenses 
as  "impudence,"  or  "swearing,"  or  "indecent  language  in  the 
presence  of  the  employer,  his  family,  or  agent,"  or  "  quarreling 
or  fighting  Avith  one  another."  The  master  or  his  agent  might 
assail  every  ear  with  profaneness  aimed  at  the  negro  men,  and 
outrage  every  sentiment  of  decency  in  the  foul  language  ad 
dressed  to  the  negro  women  ;  but  if  one  of  the  helpless  crea 
tures,  goaded  to  resistance  and  crazed  under  tyranny,  should 
answer  back  with  impudence,  or  should  relieve  his  mind  with 
an  oath,  or  retort  indecency  upon  indecency,  he  did  so  at  the 
cost  to  himself  of  one  dollar  for  every  outburst.  The  "  agent " 
referred  to  in  the  statute  is  the  well-known  overseer  of  the 


292  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

cotton  region,  and  the  care  with  which  the  law-makers  of  Lou 
isiana  provided  that  his  delicate  ears  and  sensitive  nerves  should 
not  be  offeiided  with  an  oath  or  an  indecent  word  from  a  negro 
will  be  appreciated  by  all  who  have  heard  the  crack  of  the  whip 
on  a  Southern  plantation. 

It  is  impossible  to  quote  all  the  hideous  provisions  of  these 
statutes,  under  whose  operation  the  negro  would  have  relapsed 
gradually  and  surely  into  actual  and  admitted  slavery.  Kindred 
legislation  was  attempted  in  a  large  majority  of  the  Confederate 
States,  and  it  is  not  uncharitable  or  illogical  to  assume  that  the 
ultimate  re-enslavement  of  the  race  was  the  fixed  design  of 
those  who  framed  the  laws,  'and  of  those  who  attempted  to 
enforce  them. 

I  am  not  speculating  as  to  what  would  have  been  done  or 
might  have  been  done  in  the  Southern  States  if  the  National 
Government  had  not  intervened.  I  have  quoted  what  actually 
was  done  by  Legislatures  under  the  control  of  Southern  Demo 
crats,  and  I  am  only  recalling  facts  when  I  say  that  those 
outrages  against  human  nature  were  upheld  by  the  Democratic 
party  of  the  country.  All  the  Democrats  whose  articles  I  am 
reviewing  were  in  various  degrees,  active  or  passive,  principal 
or  endorser,  parties  to  this  legislation ;  and  the  fixed  determi 
nation  of  the  Republican  party  to  thwart  it  and  destroy  it 
evoked  all  the  anathemas  of  Democratic  wrath.  It  was  just 
at  this  point  that  the  Republican  party  was  compelled  to  decide 
whether  the  emancipated  slave  should  be  protected  by  National 
power  or  handed  over  to  his  late  master  to  be  dealt  with  in 
the  spirit  of  the  enactments  I  have  quoted. 

To  restore  the  Union  on  a  safe  foundation,  to  re-establish  law 
and  promote  order,  to  insure  justice  and  equal  rights  to  all,  the 
Republican  party  was  forced  to  its  Reconstruction  policy.  To 
hesitate  in  its  adoption  was  to  invite  and  confirm  the  statutes  of 
wrong  and  cruelty  to  which  I  have  referred.  The  first  step 
taken  was  to  submit  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  giving  citizen 
ship  and  civil  rights  to  the  negro,  and  forbidding  that  he  be 
counted  in  the  basis  of  representation  unless  he  should  be  reck 
oned  among  the  voters.  The  Southern  States  could  have  been 
readily  re-admitted  to  all  their  powers  and  privileges  in  the 
Union  by  accepting  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  and  negro 


NEGRO   ENFRANCHISEMENT.  293 

suffrage  would  not  have  been  forced  upon  them.  The  gradual 
and  conservative  method  of  training  the  negroes  for  franchise, 
as  suggested  and  approved  by  Governor  Hampton,  had  many 
advocates  among  Republicans  in  the  North ;  and,  though  in  my 
judgment  it  would  have  proved  delusive  and  impracticable,  it 
was  quite  within  the  power  of  the  South  to  secure  its  adoption 
or  at  least  its  trial. 

But  the  States  lately  in  insurrection  rejected  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  with  apparent  scorn  and  defiance.  In  the  Legisla 
tures  of  Louisiana,  Mississippi,  and  Florida,  it  did  not  receive  a 
single  vote ;  in  South  Carolina  it  received  only  one  vote ;  in 
Virginia  only  one  ;  in  Texas  it  received  five  votes  ;  in  Arkansas 
two  votes ;  in  Alabama  ten  ;  in  North  Carolina  eleven  ;  and  in 
Georgia,  where  Mr.  Stephens  boasts  that  they  gave  suffrage  to 
the  negro  in  advance  of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment,  only  two 
votes  could  be  found  in  favor  of  making  the  negro  even  a 
citizen.  It  would  have  been  more  candid  in  Mr.  Stephens  if 
he  had  stated  that  it  was  the  Legislature  assembled  under 
the  Reconstruction  Act  that  gave  suffrage  to  the  negro  in 
Georgia,  and  that  the  unreconstructed  Legislature,  which  had 
his  endorsement  and  sympathies,  and  which  elected  him  to  the 
United  States  Senate,  not  only  refused  suffrage  to  the  negro, 
but  loaded  him  with  grievous  disabilities,  and  passed  a  criminal 
code  of  barbarous  severity  for  his  punishment. 

It  is  necessary  to  a  clear  apprehension  of  the  needful  facts  in 
this  discussion  to  remember  events  in  the  proper  order  of  time. 
The  Fourteenth  Amendment  was  submitted  to  the  States  June 
13,  1866.  In  the  autumn  of  that  year,  or  very  early  in  1867, 
the  Legislatures  of  all  the  insurrectionary  States  except  Ten 
nessee  had  rejected  it.  Thus  and  then  the  question  was 
forced  upon  us,  whether  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
composed  wholly  of  men  who  had  been  loyal  to  the  Govern 
ment,  or  the  Legislatures  of  the  Rebel  States,  composed  wholly 
of  men  who  had  been  disloyal  to  the  Government,  should 
determine  the  basis  on  which  their  relations  to  the  Union 
should  be  resumed.  In  such  a  crisis  the  Republican  party 
could  not  hesitate :  to  halt,  indeed,  would  have  been  an 
abandonment  of  the  principles  on  which  the  war  had  been 
fought ;  to  surrender  to  the  Rebel  Legislatures  would  have 


294  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

been  cowardly  desertion  of  its  loyal  friends,  and  a  base  betrayal 
of  the  Union  cause. 

Thus,  in  March,  1867,  after  and  because  of  the  rejection 
of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  by  Southern  Legislatures,  Con 
gress  passed  the  Reconstruction  Act.  This  was  the  origin  of 
negro  suffrage.  The  Southern  whites  knowingly  and  willfully 
brought  it  upon  themselves.  The  Reconstruction  Act  would 
never  have  been  demanded  had  the  Southern  States  accepted 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment  in  good  faith.  But  that  amend 
ment  contained  so  many  provisions  demanded  by  considerations 
of  great  national  policy,  that  its  adoption  became  an  absolute 
necessity.  Those  who  controlled  the  Federal  Government 
would  have  been  recreant  to  their  plainest  duty,  if  they  had 
permitted  the  power  of  these  States  to  be  wielded  by  disloyal 
hands  against  the  measures  deemed  essential  to  the  security  of 
the  Union.  To  have  destroyed  the  rebellion  on  the  battle-field, 
and  then  permit  it  to  seize  the  power  of  eleven  States  and 
prevent  all  changes  in  the  organic  law  necessary  to  avert 
future  rebellions,  would  have  been  a  weak  and  wicked  conclu 
sion  to  the  grandest  contest  ever  waged  for  human  rights  and 
for  constitutional  liberty. 

Negro  suffrage  being  thus  made  a  necessity  by  the  obduracy 
of  those  who  were  in  control  at  the  South,  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment  became  the  next  and  the  logical  step  to  be  taken. 
Nothing  could  have  been  more  despicable  than  to  use  the 
negroes  to  secure  the  adoption  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment, 
and  then  leave  them  exposed  to  the  hazard  of  losing  suffrage 
whenever  those  who  had  attempted  to  re-enslave  them  should 
regain  political  power  in  their  States.  Hence  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment  —  which  never  pretended  to  guarantee  universal 
suffrage,  but  simply  forbade  that  any  man  should  lose  his  vote 
because  he  had  once  been  a  slave,  or  because  his  face  might  be 
black,  or  because  his  remote  ancestors  came  from  Africa. 

It  is  matter  of  sincere  congratulation  that,  after  all  the  con 
tests  of  the  past  thirteen  years,  four  eminent  leaders  of  the 
Democratic  party  should  unite  in  approving  negro  suffrage.  It 
will  not,  I  trust,  be  considered  cynical,  certainly  not  offensive, 
if  I  venture  to  suggest  that  this  Democratic  harmony  on  the 
Republican  side  of  a  long  contest  has  been  developed  just  at  the 


NEGRO  ENFRANCHISEMENT.  295 

time  when  many  causes  have  conspired  to  render  negro  suffrage 
in  the  South  powerless  against  the  Democratic  party.  Even  in 
districts  where  the  negro  vote  is  four  to  one,  compared  with 
the  whites,  the  Democrats  readily  elect  the  Representatives  to 
Congress.  I  do  not  recall  any  warm  approval  of  negro  suffrage 
by  a  Democratic  leader  so  long  as  the  negro  was  able  to  elect 
one  of  his  own  race  or  a  white  Republican.  But  when  his 
numbers  have  been  overborne  by  violence,  when  his  white 
friends  have  been  driven  into  exile,  when  murder  has  been  just 
frequent  enough  to  intimidate  the  voting  majority,  and  when 
negro  suffrage  as  a  political  power  has  been  destroyed,  we  find 
leading  minds  in  the  Democratic  party  applauding  and  uphold 
ing  it.  So  lately  as  Feb.  19, 1872,  years  after  negro  suffrage  was 
adopted  and  while  it  was  still  a  power  in  the  Southern  States, 
such  influential  and  prominent  Democrats  as  Mr.  Bayard  of 
Delaware,  and  Mr.  Beck  of  Kentucky,  united  in  an  official 
report  to  Congress,  wherein  they  declared,  regarding  negro  suf 
frage,  that  "  there  can  be  no  permanent  partition  of  power  nor 
any  peaceable  joint  exercise  of  power  among  such  discordant 
bodies  of  men.  One  or  the  oilier  must  have  all  or  none.  .  .  . 
Pseudo-philanthropists,"  continued  Mr.  Bayard  and  Mr.  Beck, 
"may  talk  never  so  loudly  about  'equality  before  the  law,' 
where  equality  is  not  found  in  the  great  natural  law/of  race 
ordained  by  the  Creator."  Mr.  Beck  and  Mr.  Bayard  made 
this  report  when  fresh  from  protracted  intercourse  with  South 
ern  Democratic  leaders,  and  it  will  not  be  denied  that  in  their 
expressions  they  fully  represented  the  opinions  of  their  party 
at  that  time.  Will  it  be  offensive  if  I  again  ask,  what  has 
changed  the  views  of  Democrats  except  the  overthrow  of  free 
suffrage  ?  So  long  as  the  negro  can  furnish  thirty-five  Repre 
sentatives  and  thirty-five  Electors  to  the  South,  his  suffrage 
will  be  upheld  in  name,  and  so  long  as  the  Democratic  party  is 
dominant  it  will  be  destroyed  in  fact. 

Mr.  Hendricks  is  a  conspicuous  convert.  The  negro  is 
washed  and  made  white  in  his  eyes  as  soon  as  he  votes  the 
Democratic  ticket.  He  is  greatly  affected  by  the  fact  that 
negroes  "  helped  to  bury  a  Democratic  Congressman  whom  they 
had  helped  to  elect."  In  this  simple  incident  Mr.  Hendricks 
finds  great  evidence  of  restored  kindliness  between  the  races. 


296  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

Was  there  ever  a  time  when  the  colored  people  refused  to  show 
respect  to  the  whites,  living  or  dead?  The  evidence  would 
have  been  stronger  if  an  instance  had  been  quoted  of  white 
men  paying  respect  to  a  deceased  negro.  But,  unhappily,  if 
funeral  incidents  are  to  be  cited,  Mr.  Hendricks  will  find  more 
than  he  cares  to  quote.  Almost  at  the  moment  of  his  writing, 
testimony  was  given  before  a  Senate  Committee  in  Louisiana 
not  only  of  the  murder  of  two  negroes  for  the  sin  of  being 
Republicans,  but  of  their  being  left  without  sepulture,  and 
actually  devoured  by  hogs  on  the  highway  !  Their  remains  — 
the  phrase  is  doubly  significant  in  this  case  —  were  finally  cov 
ered  with  earth  by  some  negro  women,  the  negro  men  having 
all  fled  from  their  white  persecutors. 

Mr.  Hendricks's  high  praise  of  the  governments  of  South  Caro 
lina  and  Louisiana,  since  they  fell  under  Democratic  control,  is 
not  justified  by  the  facts.  Where  he  speaks  of  Republicans 
connected  with  the  government  of  South  Carolina  u  meeting 
their  punishment  in  prison  and  seeking  their  safety  in  flight, " 
he  provokes  an  easy  retort.  One  of  these  men,  an  ex-Congress 
man,  was  sent  to  prison  on  disgracefully  insufficient  evidence, 
the  judge  delivering  a  bitter  partisan  harangue  when  he  charged 
the  jury  to  convict.  Governor  Hampton,  to  his  credit  be  it 
said,  pardoned  him,  and  it  would  have  been  still  more  to  his 
credit  if  he  had  pardoned  him  more  promptly.  In  another  case 
the  Executive  of  a  great  Commonwealth  refused  Governor 
Hampton's  requisition,  on  the  ground  that  the  man  was  not 
wanted  for  the  cause  and  the  crime  alleged.  These  criminal 
charges  have  in  many  cases  borne  the  appearance  of  mere  polit 
ical  persecutions,  in  which  the  victims  are  not  the  persons  most 
dishonored. 

On  the  other  hand,  when  South  Carolinians  by  the  hundred 
were  indicted  for  interfering  with  the  freedom  of  elections  in 
killing  negroes  by  the  score,  it  was  found  impossible  to  convict 
one  of  them.  Against  the  clearest  and  most  overwhelming  evi 
dence,  these  murderers  were  allowed  to  go  free,  and  the  prose 
cutions  were  abandoned.  South  Carolina  courts  appear  to  be 
"  organized  to  convict  "  when  a  Republican  is  011  trial,  and 
South  Carolina  juries  impaneled  to  acquit  when  Democrats  are 
charged  with  crime. 


NEGRO  ENFRANCHISEMENT.  297 

In  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Hendricks,  Louisiana  under  Republi 
can  control  was  the  very  worst  of  all  the  Southern  govern 
ments.  A  change  was  made  in  April,  1877,  and  since  then  the 
Democratic  party  has  held  undisputed  power  in  that  State. 
When  the  Republicans  surrendered  the  State  there  was  a  sur 
plus  of  $300,000  in  its  treasury  ;  taxes  were  collected,  credit 
maintained,  and  interest  on  its  public  securities  promptly  and 
faithfully  paid.  To-day,  after  twenty-one  months  of  Demo 
cratic  government,  according  to  public  and  undenied  report, 
the  State  is  bankrupt ;  its  taxes  are  uncollected ;  its  treasury  is 
empty;  nearly  half  a  million  overdrawn  on  its  fiscal  agent; 
the  interest  on  its  public  debt  unpaid,  and  its  most  sacred  obli 
gations  are  protested  and  dishonored.  If  such  decadence  had 
happened  in  a  State  under  Republican  rule  —  succeeding  a 
prosperous  Democratic  administration  —  the  denunciations  of 
Mr.  Hendricks  might  have  been  fittingly  applied. 

My  conclusions  on  the  topic  under  discussion  are :  — 

First,  Slavery  having  been  Constitutionally  abolished  by  the 
adoption  of  the  Thirteenth  Amendment,  the  question  of  suffrage 
was  unsettled.  But  it  may  be  safely  affirmed  that  the  Repub 
licans  had  no  original  design  of  interfering  with  the  control 
which  the  States  had  always  exercised  on  that  question. 

Second^  The  loyal  men  who  had  conducted  the  war  to  a 
victorious  end  were  not  willing  that  those  who  had  rebelled 
against  the  Union  should  come  back  with  political  power  vastly 
increased  beyond  that  which  they  had  wielded  in  the  days  of 
pro-slavery  domination;  hence  they  proposed  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment,  practically  basing  representation  in  Congress 
upon  the  voting  population  —  the  same  for  North  and  South. 

TJiird)  Instead  of  accepting  the  Fourteenth  Amendment, 
the  insurrectionary  States  scornfully  rejected  it,  and  claimed 
the  right  to  settle  for  themselves  the  terms  on  which  they 
would  resume  relations  with  the  Union.  They  forthwith  pro 
ceeded  to  nullify  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  by  adopting  a 
series  of  "  black  laws  "  which  remanded  the  negro  to  a  worse 
servitude  than  that  from  which  he  had  been  emancipated. 

Fourth^  When  the  Government,  administered  by  loyal  hands, 
found  it  impossible  to  secure  the  necessary  guaranties  for 
future  safety  from  the  "ruling"  or  rebel  class  of  the  South, 


298  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

they  demanded  and  enforced  a  Reconstruction  policy  in  which 
loyalty  should  assert  its  rights.  Hence  the  negro  was  admitted 
to  suffrage. 

Fifth,  The  negro  having  aided  by  loyal  votes  in  securing 
the  great  guaranties  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  the  Repub 
licans  declared  that  he  should  not  afterward  be  deprived  of 
suffrage  on  account  of  race  or  color.  Hence  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment. 

Sixth,  So  long  as  the  negro  vote  was  effective  in  the  South 
in  defeating  the  Democracy,  the  leaders  of  that  party  de 
nounced  and  opposed  it.  They  withdraw  their  opposition  just 
at  the  moment  when,  by  fraud,  intimidation,  violence,  and 
murder,  free  suffrage  on  the  part  of  the  negro  in  the  South  is 
fatally  impaired ;  by  which  I  mean  that  the  negro  is  not 
allowed  to  vote  freely  where  his  vote  can  defeat  and  elect. 
As  a  minority  voter  in  Democratic  districts  he  is  not  disturbed. 

Seventh,  The  answer  often  made,  that,  compared  with  the 
whole  number  of  Congressional  districts  in  the  South,  only 
a  small  number  are  disturbed,  is  not  apposite,  and  does  not 
convey  the  truth.  For  it  is  only  in  the  districts  where  the 
negroes  make  a  strong  and  united  effort  that  violence  is  needed, 
and  there  it  is  generally  found.  Thus  it  is  said  that  only  in  a 
comparatively  few  parishes  of  Louisiana  was  there  any  disturb 
ance  at  the  late  election.  But  the  Democrats  contrived  to 
have  a  disturbance  at  the  points  where  it  was  necessary  to  over 
come  a  large  Republican  vote,  and  of  course  had  no  disturbance 
where  there  was  no  resistance.  It  will  generally  be  found  that 
the  violence  occurs  in  districts  where  the  Republicans  have  a 
rightful  majority. 

Eighth,  As  the  matter  stands,  all  violence  in  the  South 
inures  to  the  benefit  of  one  political  party.  That  party  is 
counting  upon  its  accession  to  power  and  its  rule  over  the 
country  for  a  series  of  years  by  reason  of  the  great  number  of 
electoral  votes  which  it  wrongfully  gains.  Financial  credit, 
commercial  enterprises,  manufacturing  industries,  may  all  pos 
sibly  pass  under  the  control  of  the  Democratic  party  by  reason 
of  its  unlawful  seizure  of  political  power  in  the  South.  Our 
institutions  have  been  tried  by  the  fiery  test  of  war,  and  have 
survived.  It  remains  to  be  seen  whether  the  attempt  to  govern 


NEGRO  ENFRANCHISEMENT.  299 

the   country  by  the   power   of  a   "Solid   South,"  unlawfully 
consolidated,  can  be  successful. 

No  thoughtful  man  can  consider  these  questions  without 
deep  concern.  The  mighty  power  of  a  republic  of  fifty  mil 
lions  of  people  —  with  a  continent  for  their  possession  —  can 
only  be  wielded  permanently  by  being  wielded  honestly.  In 
a  fair  and  generous  struggle  for  partisan  power  let  us  not 
forget  those  issues  and  those  ends  which  are  above  party. 
Organized  wrong  will  ultimately  be  met  by  organized  resist 
ance.  The  sensitive  and  dangerous  point  is  in  the  casting  and 
the  counting  of  free  ballots.  Impartial  suffrage  is  our  theory. 
It  must  become  our  practice.  Any  party  of  American  citizens 
can  bear  to  be  defeated.  No  party  of  American  citizens  will 
bear  to  be  defrauded.  The  men  who  are  interested  in  a  dis 
honest  count  are  units.  The  men  who  are  interested  in  an  hon 
est  count  are  millions.  I  wish  to  speak  for  the  millions  of  all 
political  parties,  and  in  their  name  to  declare  that  the  Repub 
lic  must  be  strong  enough,  and  shall  be  strong  enough,  to 
protect  the  weakest  of  its  citizens  in  all  their  rights. 


300  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


ENCOURAGEMENT  TO  AMERICAN  SHIP-BUILDING 
AND  THE  REVIVAL  OF  AMERICAN  COMMERCE 
ON  THE  OCEAN. 


[Speech  delivered  in  the  United  States  Senate  Jan.  27,  1881,  by  James  G. 
Elaine,  in  reply  to  the  speech  of  Senator  Beck  of  Kentucky,  in  favor  of  admit 
ting  foreign-built  ships  to  American  register  free  of  duty.] 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  If  the  Senate  will  indulge  me  I  would 
be  glad  to  speak  very  briefly  on  the  various  points  suggested 
by  the  senator  from  Kentucky  [Mr.  Beck],  who  has  just  closed 
a  remarkable  speech.  I  should  not  like  to  have  such  a  speech 
as  he  has  delivered  go  out  from  the  Senate  of  the  United  States 
unanswered  even  for  a  single  day,  and  I  propose,  therefore,  to 
review  his  position,  at  least  in  part.  I  regret  that  I  am  com 
pelled  to  speak  without  preparation,  with  no  data  except  such 
as  I  recall  from  memory. 

The  first  observation  I  desire  to  make  is  that  the  honorable 
senator  from  Kentucky  frankly  admits  that  the  policy  he  advo 
cates  looks  to  a  permanent  dependence  of  the  United  States 
upon  England  for  ships.  The  only  and  slight  attempt  that 
the  senator  made  to  rebut  the  conclusion  was  in  the  faint 
hope  expressed  by  him  that  the  repair-shops  which  would  spring 
up  on  this  side  of  the  water  might  develop  into  machine-shops 
and  ship-yards  large  enough  and  numerous  enough  to  construct 
steam-vessels  ;  but  throughout  the  entire  argument  of  the  sena 
tor  he  went  upon  the  presumption,  which  I  repeat  he  did  not 
even  attempt  himself  to  rebut,  that  his  policy  proclaimed  a  per 
manent  dependence  of  this  country  upon  England  for  a  mer 
chant  marine.  I  do  not  believe  the  Senate  of  the  United  States 
or  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  or  the  people  of  the  United 
States  are  ready  to  approve  that  policy. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  for  the  past  twenty-five  years  — 


AMERICAN  SHIP-BUILDING.  801 

or  make  it  only  for  the  past  twenty  years,  from  the  beginning 
of  the  war  to  this  hour  —  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  has 
not  done  one  solitary  thing  to  uphold  the  navigation  interests 
of  the  United  States.  Decay  has  been  observed  going  steadily 
on  from  year  to  year.  The  great  march  forward  of  our  com 
mercial  rival  of  old  has  been  everywhere  recognized,  and  the 
representatives  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  have  sat  in 
their  two  houses  of  legislation  as  dumb  as  though  they  could 
not  speak,  and  have  not  offered  aid  or  suggested  remedy. 
This  has  gone  on  until  now  the  honorable  senator  from  Ken 
tucky  rises  in  his  seat  and  proposes  to  make  a  proclamation 
of  perpetual  future  dependence  upon  England  for  such  ship 
ping  as  we  may  require,  holding  up  to  us  as  models  Germany, 
Italy,  and  the  other  European  countries  that  are  as  absolutely 
dependent  upon  Great  Britain  for  their  steamships  as  the 
District  of  Columbia  is  upon  Congress  for  its  legislation. 

During  these  }~ears,  in  which  Congress  has  not  stepped  for 
ward  to  do  one  thing  for  the  carrying-trade  of  the  country,  for 
all  that  vast  external  transportation  whose  importance  the 
senator  from  Kentucky  has  not  exaggerated  but  has  strongly 
depicted,  the  same  Congress  has  passed  ninety-two  acts  in  aid  of 
internal  transportation  by  rail,  has  given  200,000,000  acres  of  vthe 
public  lands,  worth  to-day  a  thousand  million  dollars  in  money, 
and  has  added  870,000,000  in  cash,  and  yet,  I  repeat,  it  has 
scarcely  extended  the  aid  of  a  single  dollar  to  build  up  our  foreign 
commerce.  An  energetic  and  able  man1  who  found  a  great 
ocean  highway  unoccupied,  and  had  the  enterprise  to  put  Ameri 
can  vessels  of  the  best  construction  and  great  power  upon  it,  has 
been  held  up  to  scorn  and  to  reproach  because  he  came  to  the 
American  Congress  and  said,  "  If  you  will  do  for  this  enterprise 
what  the  Emperor  of  Brazil  will  do,  I  will  give  you  a  great  line 
of  steamships  from  New  York  to  Rio  Janeiro."  The  Emperor  of 
Brazil  had  said  to  this  enterprising  man,  "  My  Government  will 
pay  you  a  hundred  thousand  dollars  a  year  if  you  will  establish 
and  maintain  this  line;"  and  New  England  senators,  I  regret 
to  say,  senators  who  represent  the  protective  system  of  this 
country,  remarked  with  quiet  complacency,  "  If  Brazil  is  willing 

1  John  Roach  of  New  York,  an  Irishman  by  birth,  long  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States;  a  man  of  remarkable  ability,  energy  and  integrity. 


302  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

to  pay  for  the  line,  we  need  not."  Brazil  naturally  enough  has 
got  tired  paying  all  and  we  paying  none.  Just  as  soon  as  it 
was  found  that  we  would  not  pay,  a  combination  of  English 
ship-builders  said,  "  We  will  put  on  our  ships  and  run  that 
American  line  off;  we  will  carry  the  coffee  of  Brazil  to  the 
United  States  for  nothing  ;  we  will  break  down  this  attempt  of 
the  United  States  to  begin  a  race  upon  the  ocean ; "  and  they 
have  pretty  nearly  succeeded,  while  we  have  looked  on  with 
apparent  unconcern,  and  by  our  indifference  have  even  favored 
the  efforts  of  the  English  line. 

During  the  whole  of  Great  Britain's  mastery  of  the  sea, 
while  she  has  been  seeking  every  line  on  which  a  steamer  could 
float,  she  has  never  put  on  lines  to  carry  from  an  American 
port  to  anjr  foseign  ports,  but  only  to  her  own.  You  cannot 
get  a  British  and  South  American  steamship  line  except  on 
the  triangular  system.  They  will  go  from  New  York  to  Liv 
erpool  taking  breadstuff's  or  cotton,  from  Liverpool  to  Rio 
Janeiro  taking  British  fabrics,  from  Rio  Janeiro  to  New  York 
bringing  coffee  and  dye-woods;  but  when  the  proposition  is 
made  that  they  shall  go  back  from  New  York  to  Rio,  they 
decline  because  they  do  not  want  to  interfere  with  the  pros 
perity  of  England  at  home  by  furnishing  transportation  to  any 
point  for  American  fabrics  in  competition  with  British  fabrics. 
The  result  will  be  that  if  this  American  line  to  Brazil  shall  be 
taken  off,  as  in  all  probability  it  will  be  if  the  United  States 
extends  no  aid,  then  letters  from  the  United  States,  letters  of 
the  merchants  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore 
and  Boston,  will  be  conveyed  to  Rio  Janeiro  via  Liverpool  and 
reach  that  point  over  two  great  lines  of  British  steamships. 

Mr.  President,  the  frank  admission  of  the  honorable  senator 
from  Kentucky  takes  away  a  large  part  of  the  argument  which 
I  thought  I  should  have  to  make,  and  which  was  to  prove  that 
if  the  United  States  to-day  is  incompetent  to  compete  with 
Great  Britain  in  the  manufacture  of  iron  ships,  and  if  we 
admit  iron  ships  from  Great  Britain  absolutely  free  of  duty, 
we  shall  be  still  more  incompetent  to  do  it  next  year.  It 
requires,  in  the  language  of  the  trade,  a  great  "plant"  to 
build  steamships.  It  requires  a  large  investment  of  money, 
numerous  machine-shops  and  powerful  machinery.  If  in  acldi- 


AMERICAN  SHIP-BUILDING.  303 

tion  to  what  has  been  done  abroad  to  build  up  English  ship 
yards  we  now  pour  into  them  all  the  patronage  from  this 
country,  I  should  like  the  honorable  senator  from  Kentucky  or 
any  other  senator  to  tell  me  exactly  at  what  point  of  time  it 
will  come  to  pass  that  any  feeble  effort  on  this  side  will  begin 
to  compete  with  those  great  British  ship-yards.  If  you  abandon 
ship-building  this  year  because  you  are  unable,  you  will  be  far 
more  unable  next  year,  you  will  be  still  less  able  the  year  en 
suing,  and  every  year  will  add  to  the  monopoly  of  British  power 
in  that  respect  and  to  the  absolute  weakness  and  prostration 
of  American  power  in  competition.  But  the  frank  admission  by 
the  honorable  senator  from  Kentucky  of  the  future  and  per 
petual  dependence  upon  England  removes  the  necessity  of 
arguing  that  point.  He  admits  it  with  all  its  damaging  force. 

Mr.  President,  fas  est  ab  hoste  doceri.  Great  Britain  has  been 
our  great  commercial  rival.  How  has  she  succeeded?  Since 
the  first  Cunard  steamship  sailed  into  Boston  Harbor,  now  about 
forty  years  ago,  down  to  the  close  of  1878,  Great  Britain  had 
paid  from  her  treasury  to  aid  her  steamship  lines  a  sum  exceed 
ing  forty  million  pounds  sterling  —  more  than  two  hundred 
millions  of  American  dollars.  She  began  this  policy  with  great 
wisdom  at  the  moment  she  foresaw  that  the  steamship  was 
to  play  so  commanding  a  part  in  the  navigation  of  the  great 
oceans.  I  know  it  is  a  favorite  argument  with  those  who 
occupy  the  position  of  the  honorable  senator  from  Kentucky 
that  Great  Britain  started  upon  the  plan  of  subsidizing  her 
ocean  lines,  and  followed  it  for  a  long  period  of  years,  and 
afterward  abandoned  it.  Sir,  she  has  never  abandoned  it. 
She  has  abandoned  subsidy  only  to  those  lines  that  are  strong 
enough  to  go  alone,  and  the  British  post-office  report  for  the 
year  1879.  shows  that  under  the  despised  head  of  postal  aid, 
to  which  the  senator  from  Kentucky  was  pleased  to  refer  with 
sneers,  Great  Britain  paid  last  year  £ 783,000,  well-nigh  four 
million  dollars  in  coin  to  her  lines  that  need  help. 

France  obtains  her  steamships  from  England.  France  has 
adopted  the  commercial  policy  which  the  honorable  senator 
from  Kentucky  thinks  would  be  the  revival  of  the  American 
shipping  interest ;  but  does  France  by  the  mere  fact  of  getting 
her  ships  built  at  Birkenhead  or  on  the  Clyde  abandon  the  plan, 


304  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

which  has  been  for  thirty  years  in  operation  under  her  gov 
ernment,  of  aiding  her  ships?  Last  year,  sir,  France  paid 
23,000,000  francs  —  more  than  four  and  a  half  million  dollars  — 
to  aid  her  steamship  lines.  When  the  celebrated  line  of  France, 
the  company  known  as  Messageries  Impe'riale,  competed  too 
sharply  in  the  Mediterranean  after  the  opening  of  the  Suez 
Canal,  with  the  Peninsular  and  Oriental  Company  of  Eng 
land  and  was  likely  to  endanger  its  supremacy,  Great  Britain 
promptly  stepped  forward  and  added  1500,000  to  the  Penin 
sular  and  Oriental  subsidy.  That  is  the  way  Great  Britain  has 
abandoned  the  idea  of  aiding  her  great  commercial  interests ! 

Italy,  hemmed  in  upon  the  Mediterranean,  with  a  territory 
that  does  not  touch  either  of  the  great  oceans,  is  advancing 
rapidly  in  steam-navigation.  Italy  last  year  paid  $1,600,000 
to  her  lines;  and  even  Austria,  that  enjoys  but  a  single  sea 
port  on  the  upper  end  of  the  Adriatic,  pays  $500,000  toward 
stimulating  commercial  ventures  from  Trieste.  Sir,  the  United 
States  cannot  succeed  in  this  great  international  struggle  with 
out  adopting  exactly  the  same  mode  that  has  achieved  victory 
for  France.  What  is  it?  It  is  not  to  help  A  B  or  C  D  or  E  F 
or  anybody  else  by  name,  neither  Mr.  John  Roach,  nor  Mr. 
John  Doe  nor  Mr.  Richard  Roe,  but  to  make  a  great  and  com 
prehensive  policy  that  shall  give  to  every  company  a  pledge 
of  aid  from  the  Government  of  so  much  per  mile  for  such  a 
term  of  years.  Let  the  American  merchants  feel  that  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  is  behind  them.  Let  the 
United  States  take  from  her  treasury  per  annum  the  four 
millions  of  dollars  that  Great  Britain  is  paying  as  a  postscript 
to  her  $200,000,000  of  investment ;  let  the  United  States  but 
take  $4,000,000  per  annum  —  and  that  is  not  a  great  sum  for 
this  opulent  country  —  let  that  be  used  as  a  fund  to  stimulate 
steamship  companies  from  any  port  of  the  United  States  to  any 
foreign  port  on  the  globe,  and  I  venture  to  predict  that  you 
will  see  that  long  deferred,  much  desired  event,  the  revival  of 
the  American  merchant  marine. 

Let  us  do  one  thing  more  where  England  has  pointed  the  way 
for  us.  We  have  nine  navy-yards,  without  a  navy.  If  we  will 
put  the  expense  of  those  navy-yards  into  the  building  up  of 
great  private  ship-yards,  it  will  form  subsidy  enough  —  if  that 


AMERICAN  SHIP-BUILDING.  305 

hated  word  will  not  offend  the  delicate  ears  of  my  friend  from 
Kentucky  —  it  will  afford  aid  enough,  if  that  be  more  to  his 
taste ;  it  will  give  help  enough,  in  conjunction  with  the  saving 
on  the  construction  of  naval  vessels,  to  carry  out  a  comprehen 
sive  scheme  for  the  revival  of  American  navigation. 

We  not  only  withhold  our  hands  from  any  aid  to  the  Ameri 
can  merchant  marine,  but  we  keep  up  the  shadow  of  a  shell 
of  a  navy  on  the  most  expensive  basis  possible.  Great  Britain 
I  believe  never  had  more  than  three  navy-yards  for  all  her  vast 
work  of  construction  and  repair.  We  support  nine  navy-yards. 
The  navy  of  Great  Britain  is  fifteen  times  as  large  really,  as 
ours  is  nominally. 

Mr.  President,  we  have  the  largest  ocean  frontage  of  any 
nation  on  the  globe.  We  front  all  continents.  We  border 
the  two  great  oceans,  the  greatest  of  gulfs  on  the  South,  the 
Arctic  Sea  beyond  the  Straits  of  Behring.  We  are  necessarily 
by  our  position  in  need  of  a  navy. 

The  honorable  senator  from  Kentucky  has  apparently  given 
this  subject  wide  and  deep  attention,  and  I  shall  be  glad  to 
be  informed  at  his  own  convenience  how,  after  he  has  brought 
this  country  to  a  state  of  absolute  dependence  upon  Great 
Britain  for  our  mercantile  marine,  he  proposes  to  uphold  our 
navy,  how  he  proposes  to  build  the  vessels,  where  he  will  be 
able  to  secure  his  ship-carpenters?  I  do  not  speak  of  the 
sailors;  we  can  hire  them  from  the  outside  world.  But  how 
does  he  propose  to  retain  among  our  people  the  art  of  build 
ing  ocean-going  steamers  when  his  policy  absolutely  transfers 
the  whole  of  the  business  at  once  to  English  ship-yards  ? 

I  do  not  expect  this  Congress  to  do  any  'thing.  I  am  not 
talking  with  the  slightest  hope  of  success.  But  I  know  success 
will  come  sometime.  I  know  that  the  scheme  of  the  honorable 
senator  from  Kentucky,  even  if  Congress  should  adopt  it,  would 
disappoint  everybody.  It  would  disappoint  everybody  except 
the  English  ship-builder.  It  would  not  disappoint  him.  Yet 
I  venture  to  say  it  would  not  be  followed  as  the  honorable 
senator  thinks  by  large  American  investments  in  British  ships. 

It  opens  no  possible  temptation  to  a  man  desiring  to  invest 
in  navigation  to  say  to  him,  "  You  may  go  abroad,  to  England, 
and  buy  a  vessel  and  bring  her  to  New  York  and  we  will  allow 


306  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

you  to  register  her  at  the  custom-house,  and  you  may  float  the 
American  flag."  —  "  No,  I  thank  you,"  the  shrewd  investor  re 
plies.  "If  I  do  that  I  shall  have  more  taxation  than  I  shall 
have  in  Liverpool  or  Bristol.  I  prefer  to  keep  the  registry  over 
there,"  just  as  the  Williams  &  Guion  line  does.  There  are 
men  in  New  York  deriving  dividends  from  that  line  just  as 
there  are  men  in  Philadelphia  deriving  dividends  from  the 
Philadelphia  line  that  is  partly  made  up  of  British  vessels.  The 
very  moment  you  disconnect  the  idea  of  a  National  marine  and 
the  building  of  it  here,  the  very  moment  you  put  it  down  on 
the  simple  basis  of  dollars  and  cents,  regardless  of  any  thing 
American  in  it,  then  there  is  no  temptation  whatever,  and  you 
offer  no  extra  inducement  by  saying  that  the  vessel  may  be 
registered  here,  not  the  slightest  in  the  world,  and  it  would  not 
be  done.  When  the  senator  from  Kentucky  holds  up  the  bril 
liant  prospect  that  the  repair-shops  might  be  the  germ  of  a 
future  marine,  he  abandons,  in  effect  if  not  in  intention,  all 
idea  of  building  ships  on  this  side  of  the  water. 

This  subject,  Mr.  President,  never  can  be  considered  and 
decided  intelligently,  as  ultimately  it  must  be,  without  taking 
into  account  the  naval  establishment  of  the  United  States  and 
the  mercantile  marine  of  the  United  States  at  the  same  time. 
The  naval  establishment  must  be  the  outgrowth  of  the  mercan 
tile  marine,  just  as  it  always  has  been,  just  as  it  always  will  be ; 
and  where  you  have  no  mercantile  marine  out  of  which  to  grow 
a  navy,  you  will  have  no  navy.  As  recently  as  the  beginning 
of  the  late  war  the  maritime  States  of  this  Union  were  able  to 
provide,  in  that  great  struggle,  seven  thousand  competent  offi 
cers  of  the  various  grades  of  the  volunteer  navy,  and  to  put  on 
the  decks  of  the  blockading  fleet  seventy  thousand  American 
sailors.  The  senator  from  Kentucky  said,  and  I  think  justly, 
that  too  much  had  been  made  or  attempted  to  be  made  out  of 
the  fact  that  a  few  vessels  had  been  taken  by  blockade-runners 
and  destroyed,  and  others  frightened  into  registry  abroad  ;  and 
that  many  were  dating  the  downfall  of  the  American  mercantile 
marine  from  that  cause.  That  was  indeed  one  cause,  but  I 
agree  with  the  senator  that  it  was  not  by  any  means  the  prin 
cipal  cause.  I  agree  with  him  that  it  was  a  coincident  cause 
merely. 


AMERICAN  SHIP-BUILDING.  307 

Another  cause  was  set  in  operation  about  that  time  of  which 
the  commercial  world  at  least  has  taken  great  heed.  Up  to  that 
date  steam-vessels  had  not  been  good  freighters.  The  side- 
wheel  steamer  that  did  business  between  this  country  and 
Europe  was  not  a  great  carrying-vessel ;  she  required  too  much 
coal ;  her  engine  took  up  too  much  space.  But  in  the  midst 
of  our  war,  by  a  succession  of  inventions  —  partly  American 
and  partly  British  —  there  was  a  complete  revolution  effected 
in  ocean-going  steamers,  and  that  revolution  can  best  be 
described  by  stating  this  formula  :  —  prior  to  that  date  a  vessel 
of  3,000  tons  on  a  voyage  of  given  length  had  to  make  2,200 
tons  allowance  for  coal  and  machinery,  and  only  800  tons 
for  freight,  while  now  it  is  precisely  reversed,  and  they  can 
take  800  tons  only  for  coal  and  machinery  and  2,200  tons  for 
freight.  This  is  the  revolution  of  which  Great  Britain  has  had 
the  advantage  and  it  is  often  confused  with  that  other  cause 
from  which  we  suffered  by  reason  of  the  war.  But  the  senator 
from  Kentucky  is  correct  in  stating  that  the  destruction  of  the 
vessels  during  the  civil  struggle,  large  as  it  was  estimated  at 
the  time  and  grievous  as  was  the  calamity  to  individuals  and  to 
the  country,  was  not  the  great  principal  cause  which  brought 
about  the  revolution  from  sailing-vessels  to  the  steam-marine. 

The  carrying-capacity  of  an  ocean-going  steamer  is  something 
surprising  to  men  who  have  not  examined  it.  The  first  steamer 
of  the  John  Roach  line,  so  called  —  and  the  steamers  are  by  no 
means  as  large  as  those  of  the  Cunard  and  White  Star  lines  sail 
ing  between  Liverpool  and  New  York  —  the  very  first  steamer 
that  sailed  from  New  York  to  Rio,  besides  an  assorted  cargo, 
which  in  a  manifest  would  seem  to  be  more  than  could  be  put 
in  the  hold  of  the  vessel,  carried  also  twenty  thousand  barrels 
of  flour.  It  seems  almost  incredible  when  you  think  of  the 
freight-cars  which  that  cargo  would  require  if  carried  by  rail. 
The  freight  of  two  hundred  cars,  one  hundred  barrels  to  the  car, 
was  placed  in  the  hold  of  that  vessel.  It  is  in  this  respect  that 
these  vessels  have  gained  so  enormously  in  the  carrying-trade. 

It  is  idle  to  fight  against  the  inventions  of  the  world :  it  is 
idle  for  us  to  fold  our  arms  and  suppose  that  wooden  vessels  are 
to  maintain  the  importance  they  have  hitherto  held  in  the  com 
merce  of  the  world.  I  think  I  understand  something  of  that 


308  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

subject.  I  have  the  honor  to  be  from  the  State  that  has  built 
more  ocean-going  wooden  vessels  than  all  the  rest  of  this  Union 
beside,  I  believe.  Within  thirty  miles  of  my  own  residence  is 
a  town  of  only  ten  thousand  people  which  is  the  largest  wooden 
ship-building  place  on  the  globe  to-day.  While  the  days  of 
wooden  ships  are  by  no  means  over,  while  they  will  be  a  great 
and  needful  auxiliary  to  the  steamers  of  iron  and  steel  engaged 
in  the  commerce  of  the  world,  yet  it  is  manifest,  is  indeed 
already  proven,  that  the  great  highways  of  international  com 
merce,  such  as  the  North  Atlantic,  the  West  India  seas,  the 
routes  from  our  Pacific  coast  to  South  America,  to  Asia  and  to 
Australia,  will  be  occupied,  and  occupied  almost  to  the  exclu 
sion  of  sailing-vessels,  by  ocean  steamers.  The  people  of  the 
United  States  can  take  a  great  part  in  that  race ;  they  can 
take  a  great  part  in  it  whenever  they  make  up  their  mind 
that  the  instrumentality  by  which  England  conquered  is  the 
one  which  they  must  use  ;  they  can  take  it  whenever  they 
make  up  their  minds  that  a  mercantile  marine  and  a  naval 
establishment  must  grow  and  go  together  hand  in  hand,  and 
that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  is  derelict  in  its  duty 
if  it  passes  another  naval  appropriation  bill  without  accom 
panying  it  with  some  wise  and  forecasting  provision  looking 
also  to  the  upbuilding  of  the  American  merchant  marine. 

What  the  honorable  senator  from  Kentucky  was  pleased  to 
say  in  regard  to  the  protective  system  and  its  horrible  crimes  I 
have  no  time  to  answer.  The  unfortunate  venture  which  was 
made  in  the  late  campaign  on  that  subject  had  its  origin  in 
Kentucky ;  and  if  the  honorable  senator  is  merely  trying  to 
gloss  over  the  remarkable  blunder  that  somehow  or  other  crept 
into  the  Cincinnati  platform  through  the  agency  of  a  brilliant 
Kentuckian  I  have  no  special  desire  to  reply  to  him.  I  concede 
to  him,  rather  I  think  he  will  concede  to  me,  that  politically  it 
was  a  blunder,  and  all  the  efforts  of  the  distinguished  military 
hero  who  ran  as  the  candidate  of  the  Democratic  party  to  get 
back  to  the  protection  platform  only  ended  in  making  that 
which  was  before  serious  end  in  a  half  farce. 

Mr.  President,  I  say  to  the  upholders  of  protection  —  and  the 
election  showed  that  the  overwhelming  public  opinion  of  this 
countiy  is  interested  in  keeping  up  American  manufactures 


AMERICAN  SHIP-BUILDING.  309 

against  foreign  manufactures  —  I  say  to  them  that  Protection 
cannot  be  permanently  maintained  without  building  up  the 
commercial  marine  of  this  country.  If  any  of  the  gibes  and 
taunts  which  the  senator  from  Kentucky  so  freely  distributed 
to  the  manufacturing  interests  of  the  country  in  his  remarks 
shall  come  to  the  notice  of  and  shall  arouse  the  men  in  New 
England  and  elsewhere  who  are  enjoying  the  benefits  of  a  pro 
tective  tariff,  to  the  necessity  of  extending  the  strong  arm  of 
the  Government  to  the  upbuilding  of  its  commercial  marine, 
then  those  gibes  and  taunts  will  not  have  been  addressed  in 
vain,  and  I  for  one  shall  thank  the  honorable  senator  from 
Kentucky  for  that  portion  of  his  elaborate  speech. 

Mr.  BECK.  ...  I  do  not  propose  to  answer  now  any  of  the 
political  suggestions  of  the  senator  from  Maine.  I  approved 
the  plank,  as  I  always  have  done,  of  a  tariff  for  revenue.  Mr. 
"VVatterson  was  right :  it  is  true,  honest,  Democratic  doctrine. 
In  1876,  when  the  convention  met  at  St.  Louis,  there  was  a 
plank  in  the  Democratic  platform  stronger  and  more  earnest 
than  that  inserted  at  Cincinnati  in  1880,  and  we  carried  the 
country  on  it,  although  we  were  cheated  out  of  the  Presi 
dency.  .  .  .  Nor  do  I  propose  to  interfere  with  the  coastwise 
trade  of  the  country,  which  is  to-day  sixty  per  cent  of  all  we 
have,  and  is  a  monopoly  absolute,  so  much  so  that  the  ship 
builders  and  ship-owners  of  Maine  and  elsewhere,  all  along  our 
coasts  on  the  Atlantic,  the  Pacific,  and  the  Gulf,  can  charge 
our  own  people  what  they  please  without  interference  so  far  as 
foreign  nations  are  concerned.  I  am  content  that  they  may  have 
it,  and  sixty  per  cent  of  all  we  have  in  the  shipping  business 
seems  to  me  to  be  monopoly  enough ;  even  that  is  all  wrong  on 
principle.  .  .  . 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Mr.  President,  the  senator  from  Kentucky  has 
dwelt  at  considerable  length  upon  the  monopoly  of  the  coasting- 
trade  which  is  enjoyed  by  the  United  States.  He  ought  to 
know,  arid  certainly  does  know,  that  the  United  States  has 
been  industriously  engaged  for  the  last  twenty-five  years  in 
breaking  down  the  coasting-trade.  When  the  United  States 
paid  $70,000,000  in  constructing  a  railway  across  the  continent, 
more  than  half  of  the  profit  of  the  coasting-trade  of  this  coun 
try  was  taken  away,  and  the  railways  that  have  gone  along  the 


310  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

coast  and  up  and  down  in  various  directions  have  reduced  the 
coasting-trade  of  this  country  to  a  minimum  as  compared  with 
what  it  was  twenty-five  or  thirty  years  ago.  The  great  nest  of 
commerce  which  the  honorable  senator  thinks  he  leaves  in  the 
monopoly  of  the  coasting-trade  has  been  removed  by  the  rail 
way  system  which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has 
built  up  with  a  subsidy  ten  times  as  large  as  that  which  is 
now  required  for  the  revival  of  the  foreign  carrying-trade. 

When  the  honorable  senator  from  Kentucky  desires  that  the 
steamships  which  are  to  do  the  traffic  of  this  country  shall  be 
built  abroad,  he  forgets  an  important  fact,  of  the  deepest  inter 
est  to  the  laboring-man  of  America ;  viz.,  that  if  you  build  a 
ship  worth  $500,000,  there  is  less  than  $5,000  of  raw  material 
in  her,  while  more  than  $495,000  is  paid  for  labor.  The  senator 
from  Kentucky  is  therefore  proposing  legislation  that  will  take 
this  enormous  employment  of  labor  to  the  other  side  of  the 
ocean,  and  expend  large  sums  in  foreign  countries  that  should 
be  paid  to  American  mechanics  at  home.  He  forgets  also  that 
every  steamship  during  the  period  of  her  service  gives  work  to 
as  large  a  number  of  men  on  shore  as  she  does  at  sea.  All  this 
labor  the  honorable  senator  proposes  to  employ  on  the  other  side 
of  the  ocean.  For  adding  to  the  commercial  importance  and 
the  absolute  monopoly  of  the  British  marine,  we  can  safely  trust 
the  senator  from  Kentucky  to  suggest  the  most  comprehensive 
and  certain  plan. 

The  honorable  senator,  in  the  early  part  of  his  remarks,  in 
maintaining  that  our  ship-owners  were  handicapped  by  our 
Navigation  Laws,  said  in  illustration  of  his  position  that  in 
Kentucky,  where  they  raise  and  run  fine  horses,  a  man  would 
be  considered  a  fool  to  put  one  hundred  and  fifty  pounds  on  the 
back  of  a  race-horse  against  one  that  was  running  with  only  one 
hundred  and  ten.  Oh,  no,  the  senator  from  Kentucky  does  not 
propose  to  do  that  at  all !  He  simply  proposes  to  withdraw 
the  American  horse  from  the  race. 


DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE. 


CLAYTON-BULWER   TREATY  AND    INTEROCEANIC 

CANAL. 


[The  following  dispatch  from  Mr.  Elaine,  Secretary  of  State,  to  James  Russell 
Lowell,  Minister  at  London,  was  also  sent  mutatis  mutandis  to  other  ministers 
of  the  United  States  in  Europe.] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  June  24,  1881. 

SIK,  —  It  has  come  under  the  observation  of  the  President, 
through  the  current  statements  of  the  European  press  and 
other  usual  modes  of  communication,  that  the  great  Powers  of 
Europe  may  be  considering  the  subject  of  jointly  guaranteeing 
the  neutrality  of  the  interoceanic  canal  now  projected  across 
the  Isthmus  of  Panama. 

The  United  States  recognizes  a  proper  guarantee  of  neutrality 
as  essential  to  the  construction  and  successful  operation  of  any 
highway  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  and  in  the  last  genera 
tion  every  step  deemed  requisite  in  the  premises  was  taken  by 
this  Government.  The  necessity  was  foreseen  and  abundantly 
provided  for,  long  in  advance  of  any  possible  call  for  the  actual 
exercise  of  power. 

In  1846  a  memorable  and  important  treaty  was  negotiated 
and  signed  between  the  United  States  of  America  and  the 
Republic  of  New  Granada,  now  the  United  States  of  Colombia. 
By  the  thirty-fifth  article  of  that  treaty,  the  United  States  in 
exchange  for  certain  concessions,  guaranteed  "positively  and 
efficaciously  "  the  perfect  neutrality  of  the  Isthmus  and  of  any 
interoceanic  communications  that  might  be  constructed  upon  or 
over  it  for  the  maintenance  of  free  transit  from  sea  to  sea ;  and 

sn 


312  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

also  guaranteed  the  rights  of  sovereignty  and  property  of  the 
United  States  of  Colombia  over  the  territory  of  the  Isthmus  as 
included  within  the  borders  of  the  State  of  Panama. 

In  the  judgment  of  the  President  this  guarantee,  given  by 
the  United  States  of  America,  does  not  require  re-enforcement, 
or  accession,  or  assent  from  any  other  Power.  In  more  than 
one  instance  this  Government  has  been  called  upon  to  vindicate 
the  neutrality  thus  guaranteed,  and  no  contingency  is  now 
foreseen  or  apprehended  in  which  such  vindication  would  not 
be  within  the  power  of  this  nation. 

There  has  never  been  the  slightest  doubt  on  the  part  of  this 
Government  as  to  the  purpose  or  extent  of  the  obligation  then 
assumed,  by  which  the  United  States  became  surety  alike  for 
the  free  transit  of  the  world's  commerce  over  whatever  land- 
way  or  water-way  might  be  opened  from  sea  to  sea,  and  for  the 
protection  of  the  territorial  rights  of  Colombia  from  aggression 
or  interference  of  any  kind.  Nor  has  there  ever  been  room  to 
question  the  full  extent  of  the  advantages  and  benefits,  naturally 
due  to  its  geographical  position  and  political  relations  on  the 
Western  Continent,  which  the  United  States  obtained  from 
the  owner  of  the  Isthmian  territory  in  exchange  for  that  far- 
reaching  and  responsible  guarantee. 

If  the  foreshadowed  action  of  the  European  Powers  should 
assume  tangible  shape,  it  would  be  well  for  you  to  bring  to  the 
notice  of  Lord  Granville  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  1846, 
and  especially  of  its  thirty-fifth  article,  and  to  intimate  to  him 
that  any  movement,  with  the  view  of  supplementing  the  guar 
antee  contained  therein,  would  necessarily  be  regarded  by  this 
Government  as  an  uncalled-for  intrusion  into  a  field  where  the 
local  and  general  interests  of  the  United  States  of  America 
must  be  considered  before  the  interests  of  any  other  Power  save 
those  of  the  United  States  of  Colombia  alone.  That  Republic 
has  already  derived  and  will  continue  to  derive  eminent  advan 
tages  from  the  guarantee  of  this  Government. 

The  President  deems  it  due  to  frankness  to  be  still  more  ex 
plicit  on  this  subject,  and  to  elucidate  the  views  of  the  United 
States  Government  with  somewhat  of  detail  to  the  end  that  no 
uncertainty  shall  subsist  as  to  the  integrity  of  our  motives  or 
the  distinctness  of  our  aims. 


CLAYTON-BULWER  TREATY  —  INTEROCEANIC  CANAL.  313 

It  is  not  the  wish  or  the  purpose  of  the  United  States  to 
interfere  with  any  commercial  enterprise  in  which  the  citizens 
or  subjects  of  any  foreign  power  may  see  fit  to  embark,  under  a 
lawful  privilege.  The  fact  that  the  stock  and  franchises  of  the 
Panama  Canal  or  the  Panama  Railway  are  owned  in  Europe, 
either  in  whole  or  principally,  is  no  more  a  subject  of  complaint 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States  than  is  the  circumstance  that 
the  stock  of  many  of  its  own  lines  of  railway  is  largely  held 
abroad.  Such  ownership,  with  its  attendant  rights,  is  in  the 
United  States  amply  secured  by  the  laws  of  the  land,  and  on 
the  Isthmus  is  doubly  secured  by  the  local  laws  of  Colombia, 
under  the  guarantee  of  the  United  States. 

In  time  of  peace,  the  United  States  does  not  seek  exclusive 
privileges  for  American  ships  in  respect  to  precedence  or  tolls 
through  an  interoceanic  canal  any  more  than  it  has  sought 
like  privileges  for  American  goods  in  transit  over  the  Panama 
Railway,  under  the  control  of  an  American  corporation.  The 
extent  of  the  privileges  of  American  citizens  and  American 
ships  is  measurable  under  the  treaty  of  1846  by  those  of  Colom 
bian  citizens  and  ships.  It  would  be  our  earnest  desire  and 
expectation  to  see  the  world's  peaceful  commerce  enjoy  the 
same  just,  liberal,  and  rational  treatment. 

It  is  the  political  control  of  such  a  canal,  as  distinguished 
from  its  merely  administrative  or  commercial  regulation,  of 
which  the  President  feels  called  upon  to  speak  with  directness 
and  with  emphasis.  During  any  war  to  which  the  United  States 
of  America  or  the  United  States  of  Colombia  might  be  a  party, 
the  passage  of  armed  vessels  of  a  hostile  nation  through  the 
canal  at  Panama  would  be  no  more  admissible  than  would  the 
passage  of  the  armed  forces  of  a  hostile  nation  over  the  railway 
lines  joining  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  shores  of  the  United 
States  or  of  Colombia.  The  United  States  of  America  will 
insist  upon  her  right  to  take  all  needful  precautions  against  a 
possibility  that  the  Isthmus  transit  shall  be  in  any  event  used 
offensively  against  her  interests  upon  the  land  or  upon  the  sea. 

The  two  Republics  between  which  the  guarantee  of  neutrality 
and  possession  exists  present  analogous  conditions  with  respect 
to  their  territorial  extension.  Each  has  a  long  line  of  coast  on 
both  oceans  to  protect  as  well  as  to  improve.  The  possessions 


DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

of  the  United  States  upon  the  Pacific  coast  are  imperial  in 
extent  and  of  extraordinary  growth.  Even  at  their  present 
stage  of  development  they  would  supply  the  larger  part  of  the 
traffic  which  would  seek  the  advantages  of  the  canal.  The 
States  of  California  and  Oregon,  and  the  Territory  of  Washing 
ton,  larger  in  area  than  England  and  France,  produce  for  export 
more  than  a  ton  of  wheat  for  each  inhabitant,  and  the  entire 
freights  demanding  water  transportation  eastward,  already  enor 
mous,  are  augmenting  each  year  with  an  accelerating  ratio. 
While  the  population  and  products  of  the  Pacific  slope  are  thus 
increasing  upon  a  vast  scale,  the  railway  system  connecting 
the  Gulf  of  Mexico  with  the  interior  and  with  the  Great  Lakes 
is  rapidly  extending,  thus  affording  additional  facilities  for 
enlar<nngr  the  commerce  that  must  seek  the  coast-line  to  the 

O         O 

Pacific,  of  which  the  projected  canal  at  Panama  will  form  a 
part,  and  be  as  truly  a  channel  of  communication  between  the 
Eastern  and  far  Western  States  as  our  own  transcontinental 
railways.  It  is  the  perception  of  this  domestic  function  of  the 
long-sought  water-way  between  the  two  seas  that  border  the 
Republic,  which  has  caused  the  project  to  be  regarded  as  of  vital 
importance  by  this  Government.  The  history  of  the  enterprise 
is  marked  from  the  outset  by  the  numerous  expeditions  which 
have,  from  time  to  time,  been  sent  out  by  the  United  States  at 
large  expense  to  explore  the  various  routes,  and  thus  facilitate 
the  work  when  the  time  should  be  ripe  and  the  capital  provided 
for  the  undertaking. 

If  the  proposed  canal  were  a  channel  of  communication  near 
to  the  countries  of  the  Old  World,  and  employed  wholly,  or 
almost  wholly,  by  their  commerce,  it  might  very  property  be 
urged  that  the  influence  of  the  European  powers  should  be 
commensurate  with  their  interests.  With  the  exercise  of  such 
influence,  the  United  States  could  find  no  fault,  especially  if 
assured  of  equal  participation  in  the  peaceable  enjoyment  of  the 
commercial  facilities  so  afforded.  The  case,  however,  is  here 
reversed,  and  an  agreement  between  the  European  States  jointly 
to  guarantee  the  neutrality  and  in  effect  control  the  political 
character  of  a  highway  of  commerce,  remote  from  them  and 
near  to  us,  forming  substantially  a  part  of  our  commercial 
coast-line  and  promising  to  become  the  chief  means  of  trans- 


CLAYTON-BULWER  TREATY  —  INTEROCEANIC  CANAL.     315 

portation  between  our  Atlantic  and  Pacific  States,  would  be 
viewed  by  this  Government  with  the  gravest  concern. 

The  policy  of  the  United  States  is  one  of  peace  and  friendly 
intercourse  with  every  Government  and  people.  This  disposi 
tion  is  not  only  avowed,  but  is  abundantly  shown  in  the  fact 
that  our  armaments  by  land  and  sea  are  kept  within  such 
limits  as  to  afford  no  ground  for  distrust  or  suspicion  of  menace 
to  other  nations.  The  guarantee  entered  into  by  this  Govern 
ment  in  1846  was  manifestly  in  the  interest  of  peace,  and  the 
necessity  imposed  by  circumstances  upon  the  United  States  of 
America  to  watch  over  a  highway  between  its  two  coasts  was 
so  imperative  that  the  resultant  guarantee  was  the  simplest 
justice  to  the  chief  interests  concerned.  Any  attempt  to 
supersede  that  guarantee  by  an  agreement  between  European 
Powers,  which  maintain  strong  armies  and  patrol  the  sea  with 
large  fleets,  and  whose  interest  in  the  canal  and  its  operation 
can  never  be  so  vital  and  supreme  as  ours,  would  partake  of 
the  nature  of  an  alliance  against  the  United  States  and  would 
be  regarded  by  this  Government  as  an  indication  of  unfriendly 
feeling.  It  would  be  Tbut  an  inadequate  response  to  the  good 
will  we  bear  them  and  to  our  cheerful  and  constant  recognition 
of  their  own  rights  of  domestic  policy,  as  well  as  those  resulting 
from  proximity  or  springing  from  neighborly  interest. 

The  European  Powers  have  repeatedly  united  in  guarantees 
of  neutrality  touching  the  political  condition  of  such  States 
as  Luxembourg,  Belgium,  Switzerland  and  parts  of  the  Orient, 
where  the  localities  were  adjacent  or  where  the  interests  in 
volved  concerned  them  nearly  and  deeply.  Recognizing  these 
facts,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has  never  offered  to 
take  part  in  such  agreements  or  to  make  any  agreements  sup 
plementary  to  them. 

While  thus  observing  the  strictest  neutrality  with  respect  to 
complications  abroad,  it  is  the  long-settled  conviction  of  this 
Government  that  any  extension  to  our  shores  of  the  political 
system  by  which  the  great  Powers  have  controlled  and  deter 
mined  events  in  Europe  would  be  attended  with  danger  to  the 
peace  and  welfare  of  this  Nation. 

While  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has  no  inten 
tion  of  initiating  any  discussion  upon  this  subject,  it  is  proper 


316  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

that  you  should  be  prepared,  in  case  of  concerted  action  or 
conference  or  exchange  of  opinions  thereon  between  the  great 
Powers  of  Europe,  to  communicate  to  the  Government  to  which 
you  are  accredited  the  views  of  the  President  as  frankly  arid 
as  fully  as  they  are  herein  set  forth.  At  suitable  times  in 
your  personal  and  friendly  intercourse  with  your  colleagues  of 
the  diplomatic  body  at  London,  you  may  find  it  proper  to  give 
discreet  expression  to  the  policy  and  motives  of  your  Govern 
ment  in  the  premises. 

You  will  be  careful,  in  any  conversations  you  may  have,  not 
to  represent  the  position  of  the  United  States  as  the  develop 
ment  of  a  new  policy  or  the  beginning  of  any  aggressive  meas 
ures.  It  is  nothing  more  than  the  pronounced  adherence  of  the 
United  States  to  principles  long  since  enunciated  by  the  highest 
authority  of  the  Government,  and  now,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
President,  firmly  inwoven  as  an  integral  and  important  part  of 
our  national  policy. 

In  his  address  upon  taking  the  oath  of  office  the  President 
distinctly  proclaimed  the  position  which  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  would  hold  upon  this  question,  and  if  the  Euro 
pean  cabinets  have  failed  to  observe  or  give  due  heed  to  the 
declarations  then  made,  it  may  be  well  for  you  on  some  proper 
occasion  to  call  the  attention  of  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs 
to  the  language  used  by  the  President. 


[Second  dispatch  on  the  subject  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  from  Mr. 
Blaine,  Secretary  of  State,  to  Mr.  James  Russell  Lowell,  Minister  at  London.] 


DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  Nov.  19,  1881. 

SIR,  —  In  pursuance  of  the  premises  laid  down  in  my  circular 
note  of  June  24  of  this  year,  touching  the  determination  of 
this  Government  with  respect  to  the  guarantee  of  neutrality 
for  the  interoceanic  canal  at  Panama,  it  becomes  my  duty  to 
call  your  attention  to  the  convention  of  April  19, 1850,  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  commonly  known  as  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty. 

According  to  the  articles  of  that  convention,  the  high  con- 


CLAYTOX-BULWER  TREATY  — INTEROCEANIC  CANAL.     317 

trading  parties,  in  referring  to  an  interoceanic  canal  through 
Nicaragua,  agreed :  — 

*'  That  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  will  ever  obtain  or  maintain  for 
itself  any  exclusive  control  over  said  ship  canal,  and  that  neither  will  ever 
erect  or  maintain  any  fortifications  commanding  the  same  or  in  the  vicinity 
thereof." 

In  a  concluding  paragraph  the  high  contracting  parties 
agreed :  — 

"  To  extend  their  protection  by  treaty  stipulations  to  any  other  practi 
cable  communications,  whether  by  canal  or  railway  across  the  Isthmus,  .  .  . 
which  are  now  proposed  to  be  established  by  way  of  Tehuantepec  or 
Panama." 

This  convention  was  made  more  than  thirty  years  ago,  under 
exceptional  conditions  which  have  long  since  ceased  to  exist  — 
conditions  which  at  best  were  temporary  in  their  nature  and 
which  can  never  be  reproduced.  The  remarkable  development 
of  the  United  States  on  the  Pacific  coast  since  that  time  has 
created  new  duties  for  this  Government,  and  devolved  new 
responsibilities  upon  it,  the  full  and  complete  discharge  of 
which  requires,  in  the  judgment  of  the  President,  some  essen 
tial  modifications  in  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty.  The  interests 
of  Her  Majesty's  Government  involved  in  this  question,  in  so 
far  as  they  may  be  properly  judged  by  the  observation  of  a 
friendly  power,  are  so  inconsiderable  in  comparison  with  those 
of  the  United  States  that  the  President  hopes  a  re-adjustment 
of  the  terms  of  the  treaty  may  be  reached  in  a  spirit  of  amity 
and  concord. 

The  respect  due  to  Her  Majesty's  Government  demands  that 
the  objections  to  the  perpetuity  of  the  convention  of  1850,  as 
it  now  exists,  should  be  stated  with  directness  and  with  entire 
frankness.  Among  the  most  salient  of  these  objections  is  the 
fact  that  the  operation  of  the  treaty  practically  concedes  to 
Great  Britain  the  control  of  whatever  canal  may  be  con 
structed.  The  insular  position  of  the  home  government,  with 
its  extended  colonial  possessions,  requires  the  British  Empire 
to  maintain  a  vast  naval  establishment.  In  our  continental 
solidity  we  do  not  need,  and  in  time  of  peace  shall  never  create 
a  rival  to  it.  If  therefore  the  United  States  binds  itself  not  to 
fortify  on  land,  it  concedes  that  Great  Britain,  in  the  possible 


318  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

case  of  a  struggle  for  the  control  of  the  canal,  shall  at  the 
outset  have  an  advantage  which  would  prove  decisive,  and 
which  could  not  be  reversed,  except  by  an  enormous  expendi 
ture  of  treasure  and  force.  The  presumptive  intention  of  the 
treaty  was  to  place  the  two  powers  on  a  plane  of  perfect 
equality  with  respect  to  the  canal ;  but  in  practice,  as  I  have 
indicated,  this  would  prove  utterly  delusive,  and  would  instead 
surrender  it,  if  not  in  form,  yet  in  effect,  to  the  control  of 
Great  Britain. 

The  treaty  binds  the  United  States  not  to  use  military 
force  in  any  precautionary  measure,  while  it  leaves  the  naval 
power  of  Great  Britain  perfectly  free  and  unrestrained  —  ready 
at  any  moment  of  need  to  seize  both  ends  of  the  canal  and 
render  its  military  occupation  on  land  a  matter  entirely  within 
the  discretion  of  Her  Majesty's  Government.  The  military 
power  of  the  United  States,  as  shown  by  the  recent  civil  war, 
is  without  limit,  and  in  any  conflict  on  the  American  continent 
altogether  irresistible.  The  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  commands 
this  Government  not  to  use  a  single  regiment  of  troops  to  pro 
tect  its  interests  in  connection  with  the  interoceanic  canal,  but 
to  surrender  the  transit  to  the  guardianship  and  control  of  the 
British  Navy.  If  no  American  soldier  is  to  be  quartered  on 
the  Isthmus  to  protect  the  rights  of  his  country  in  the  inter- 
oceanic  canal,  surely,  by  the  fair  logic  of  neutrality,  no  war- 
vessel  of  Great  Britain  should  be  permitted  to  appear  in  the 
waters  that  control  either  entrance  to  the  canal. 

A  more  comprehensive  objection  to  the  treaty  is  urged  by 
this  Government.  Its  provisions  embody  a  misconception  of 
the  relative  positions  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States 
with  respect  to  the  interests  of  each  in  questions  pertaining 
to  this  continent.  The  Government  of  the  United  States 
has  no  occasion  to  disavow  an  aggressive  disposition.  Its 
entire  policy  establishes  its  pacific  character,  and  among  its 
chief  aims  is  to  cultivate  the  most  friendly  and  intimate  rela 
tions  with  its  neighbors,  both  independent  and  colonial.  At 
the  same  time,  this  Government,  with  respect  to  European 
States,  will  not  consent  to  perpetuate  any  treaty  that  impeaches 
our  rightful  and  long-established  claim  to  priority  on  the 
American  continent. 


CLAYTOX-BULWER  TREATY  — IXTEROCEANIC   CANAL.    319 

The  United  States  seeks  only  to  use  for  the  defense  of  its 
own  interests  the  same  forecast  and  prevision  which  Her 
Majesty's  Government  energetically  employs  in  defense  of  the 
interests  of  the  British  Empire.  To  guard  her  Eastern  pos 
sessions,  to  secure  the  most  rapid  transit  for  troops  and  muni 
tions  of  war,  and  to  prevent  any  other  nation  from  having 
equal  facilities  in  the  same  direction,  Great  Britain  holds  and 
fortifies  all  the  strategic  points  that  control  the  route  to  India. 
At  Gibraltar,  at  Malta,  at  Cyprus,  her  fortifications  give  her 
the  mastery  of  the  Mediterranean.  She  holds  a  controlling 
interest  in  the  Suez  Canal,  and  by  her  fortifications  at  Aden 
and  on  the  Island  of  Perim  she  excludes  all  other  powers  from 
the  waters  of  the  Red  Sea  and  practically  renders  it  mare 
clausum.  It  would,  in  the  judgment  of  the  President,  be  no 
more  unreasonable  for  the  United  States  to  demand  a  share  in 
these  fortifications,  or  to  demand  their  absolute  neutralization, 
than  for  England  to  make  the  same  demand  in  perpetuity  from 
the  United  States  with  respect  to  the  transit  across  the  Ameri 
can  continent.  The  possessions  which  Great  Britain  thus  care 
fully  guards  in  the  East  are  not  of  more  importance  to  her  than 
is  the  Pacific  slope,  with  its  present  development  and  assured 
growth,  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

The  States  and  Territories  appurtenant  to  the  Pacific  Ocean 
and  dependent  upon  it  for  commercial  outlet,  and  hence  directly 
interested  in  the  canal,  comprise  an  area  of  nearly  eight  hun 
dred  thousand  square  miles  —  larger  in  extent  than  the  Ger 
man  Empire  and  the  four  Latin  countries  of  Europe  combined. 
This  vast  region  is  but  beginning  its  prosperous  development. 
Six  thousand  miles  of  railway  are  already  constructed  within 
its  limits,  and  it  is  a  moderate  calculation  to  say  that  within 
the  current  decade  the  number  of  miles  will,  at  least,  be 
doubled.  In  the  near  future  the  money  value  of  its  surplus  for 
export  will  be  as  large  as  that  of  British  India,  and  perhaps 
larger.  Nor  must  it  be  forgotten  that  India  is  but  a  distant 
colony  of  Great  Britain,  while  the  region  on  the  Pacific  is  an 
integral  portion  of  our  National  Union,  and  is  of  the  very  form 
and  body  of  our  State.  The  inhabitants  of  India  are  alien  from 
England  in  race,  language  and  religion.  The  citizens  of  Cali 
fornia,  Oregon  and  Nevada,  with  the  adjacent  Territories,  are 


320  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

of  our  own  blood  and  kindred  —  bone  of  our  bone  and  flesh  of 
our  flesh. 

Great  Britain  appreciates  the  advantage  and  perhaps  the 
necessity  of  maintaining  at  the  cost  of  large  military  and  naval 
establishments  the  interior  and  nearest  route  to  India,  while 
any  nation  with  hostile  intent  is  compelled  to  take  the  longer 
route  and  sail  many  thousand  additional  miles  through  danger 
ous  seas.  It  is  hardly  conceivable  that  the  same  great  Power 
which  considers  herself  justified  in  these  precautions  for  the 
safety  of  a  remote  colony  on  another  continent  should  object  to 
the  adoption  by  the  United  States  of  similar  but  far  less  demon 
strative  measures  for  the  protection  of  the  distant  shores  of  her 
own  domain,  for  the  drawing  together  of  the  extremes  of  the 
Union  in  still  closer  bonds  of  interest  and  sympathy,  and  for 
holding  to  the  simple  end  of  honorable  self-defense  the  abso 
lute  control  of  the  great  water-way  which  shall  unite  the  two 
oceans,  and  which  the  United  States  will  always  insist  upon 
treating  as  part  of  her  commercial  coast-line. 

If  a  hostile  movement  should  at  any  time  be  made  against 
the  Pacific  coast,  threatening  danger  to  its  people  and  destruc 
tion  to  its  property,  the  Government  of  the  Unked  States  would 
feel  that  it  had  been  unfaithful  to  its  duty  and  neglectful  toward 
its  own  citizens  in  permitting  itself  to  be  bound  by  a  treaty 
which  gives  the  same  right  through  the  canal  to  a  war-ship  bent 
on  an  errand  of  destruction,  that  is  reserved  to  its  own  Navy 
sailing  for  the  defense  of  our  coast  and  the  protection  of  the 
lives  of  our  people.  As  England  insists  by  the  might  of  her 
power  that  her  enemies  in  war  shall  strike  her  Indian  posses 
sions  only  by  doubling  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  the  Govern 
ment  of  the  United  States  will  in  like  manner  insist  that  the 
interior,  the  safer,  and  more  speedy  route  of  the  canal  shall 
be  reserved  for  ourselves,  while  our  enemies,  if  we  shall  ever  be 
so  unfortunate  as  to  have  any,  shall  be  remanded  to  the  voyage 
around  Cape  Horn. 

A  consideration  of  controlling  influence  in  this  question  is 
the  well-settled  conviction  on  the  part  of  this  Government  that 
only  by  the  exercise  of  supervision  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States  can  the  Isthmus  canals  be  definitely  and  at  all  times 
secured  against  the  interference  and  obstruction  incident  to 


CLAYTOX-BULWER  TREATY  —  IXTEROCEAXIC   CAXAL.     321 

war.  A  mere  agreement  of  neutrality  on  paper  between  the 
great  Powers  of  Europe  might  prove  ineffectual  to  preserve  the 
canal  in  time  of  hostilities.  The  first  sound  of  a  cannon  in  a 
general  European  war  would,  in  all  probability,  annul  the  treaty 
of  neutrality,  and  the  strategic  position  of  the  canal,  command 
ing  both  oceans,  might  be  held  by  the  first  naval  power  that 
could  seize  it.  If  this  should  be  done,  the  United  States  would 
suffer  such  grave  inconvenience  and  loss  in  her  domestic  com 
merce  as  would  enforce  the  duty  of  a  defensive  and  protective 
war  on  her  part,  for  the  mere  purpose  of  gaining  that  control 
which,  in  advance,  she  insists  is  due  to  her  position  and 
demanded  by  her  necessities. 

I  am  not  arguing  or  assuming  that  a  general  war,  or  any  war 
at  all,  is  imminent  in  Europe.  But  it  must  not  be  forgotten 
that  within  the  past  twenty-five  years  all  the  great  Powers  of 
Europe  have  been  engaged  in  war  —  most  of  them  more  than 
once.  In  only  a  single  instance  in  the  past  hundred  years  has 
the  United  States  exchanged  a  hostile  shot  with  any  European 
power.  It  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable  that  for  a  hun 
dred  years  to  come,  even  that  experience  will  be  repeated. 

It  consequently  becomes  evident  that  the  one  conclusive 
mode  of  preserving  any  Isthmus  canal  from  the  possible  distrac 
tion  and  destruction  of  war  is  to  place  it  under  the  control  of 
that  Government  least  likely  to  be  engaged  in  war,  and  able  in 
any  and  in  every  event  to  enforce  the  guardianship  which  she 
will  assume.  For  protection  of  her  own  interest,  therefore,  the 
United  States  in  the  first  instance  asserts  her  right  to  control 
the  Isthmus  transit ;  and,  secondly,  she  offers  by  such  control 
that  absolute  neutralization  of  the  canal  as  respects  European 
powers  which  can  in  no  other  way  be  certainly  attained  and 
lastingly  assured. 

Another  consideration  forcibly  suggests  the  necessity  of  modi 
fying  the  convention  under  discussion.  At  the  time  it  was 
concluded  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  were  the  only 
nations  prominent  in  the  commerce  of  Central  and  South 
America.  Since  that  time  other  leading  nations  have  greatly 
enlarged  their  commercial  connections  with  that  country,  and 
are  to-day  contending  for  supremacy  in  the  trade  of  those 
shores ;  within  the  past  four  years,  indeed,  the  number  of 


322  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

French  and  German  vessels  landing  on  the  two  coasts  of  Cen 
tral  America  far  exceeds  the  number  of  British  vessels. 

While,  therefore,  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  may 
agree  to  do  nothing,  and  according  to  the  present  convention 
each  remain  bound  to  the  other  in  common  helplessness,  a  third 
power,  or  a  fourth,  or  a  combination  of  many,  may  intervene  and 
give  direction  to  the  project  which  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty 
assumed  to  be  under  the  sole  control  of  the  two  English-speak 
ing  nations.  Indeed,  so  far  as  the  canal  scheme  now  projected 
at  Panama  finds  a  national  sponsor  or  patron,  it  is  in  the 
Republic  of  France  ;  and  the  non-intervention  enjoined  upon 
this  country  by  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty,  if  applied  to  that 
canal,  would  paralyze  the  United  States  in  any  attempt  to  assert 
the  plain  rights  and  privileges  which  this  Government  acquired 
through  a  solemn  treaty  with  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  ante 
rior  to  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Convention.  The  modification  of 
the  treaty  of  1850,  now  sought,  is  not  only  to  free  the  United 
States  from  unequal  and  inequitable  obligations  to  Great 
Britain,  but  also  to  empower  this  Government  to  treat  with  all 
other  nations  seeking  a  foot-hold  on  the  Isthmus,  on  the  same 
basis  of  impartial  justice  and  complete  independence. 

One  of  the  motives  that  originally  induced  this  Government 
to  assent  to  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treat}^,  not  distinctly  expressed 
in  the  instrument,  but  inferable  from  every  line  of  it.  was  the 
expected  aid  of  British  capital  in  the  construction  of  the  Nicar- 
aguan  Canal.  That  expectation  has  not  been  realized,  and  the 
changed  condition  of  this  country  since  1850  has  diminished,  if 
it  has  not  entirely  removed  from  consideration,  any  advantage 
to  be  derived  from  that  source. 

Whenever,  in  the  judgment  of  the  United  States  Govern 
ment,  the  time  shall  be  auspicious  and  the  conditions  favorable 
for  the  construction  of  the  Nicaraguan  Canal,  no  aid  will  be 
needed  outside  of  the  resources  of  our  own  Government  and 
people ;  and  while  foreign  capital  will  always  be  welcomed  and 
never  repelled,  it  cannot  henceforth  enter  as  an  essential  factor 
in  the  determination  of  this  problem. 

It  is  earnestly  hoped  by  the  President  that  the  considerations 
now  presented  will  have  due  weight  and  influence  with  Her 
Majesty's  Government,  and  that  the  modifications  of  the  treaty 


CLAYTOX-BULWER  TREATY  — IXTEROCEAXIC   CAXAL.     323 

desired  by  the  United  States  will  be  conceded  in  the  same 
friendly  spirit  in  which  they  are  asked.  The  following  is  a 
summary  of  the  adjustments  which  would  meet  the  views  of 
this  Government :  — 

First,  Every  part  of  the  treaty  which  forbids  the  United 
States  to  fortify  the  canal  and  hold  the  political  control  of  it 
in  conjunction  with  the  country  in  which  it  is  located,  to  be 
canceled. 

Second,  Every  part  of  the  treaty  in  which  Great  Britain  and 
the  United  States  agree  to  make  no  acquisition  of  territory  in 
Central  America  to  remain  in  full  force.  As  an  original  propo 
sition  this  Government  would  not  admit  that  Great  Britain  and 
the  United  States  should  be  put  on  the  same  basis,  even  nega 
tively,  with  respect  to  territorial  acquisitions  on  the  American 
Continent,  and  would  be  unwilling  to  establish  such  a  precedent 
without  full  explanation.  But  the  treaty  contains  that  provis 
ion  with  respect  to  Central  America,  and  if  the  United  States 
should  seek  its  annulment  it  might  give  rise  to  erroneous  and 
mischievous  apprehensions  among  a  people  with  whom  this 
Government  desires  to  be  on  the  most  friendly  terms.  The 
United  States  has  taken  special  occasion  to  assure  the  Spanish 
American  Republics  that  we  do  not  intend  and  do  not  desire 
to  cross  their  borders  or  in  any  way  disturb  their  territorial 
integrity.  We  shall  not  therefore  willingly  incur  the  risk  of 
a  misunderstanding  by  annulling  the  clauses  in  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  Treaty  which  forbid  such  a  step  with  respect  to  Central 
America.  But  the  acquisition  of  military  and  naval  stations 
necessary  for  the  protection  of  the  canal  and  voluntarily  ceded 
to  the  United  States  by  the  Central  American  States  is  not  to 
be  regarded  as  a  violation  of  the  provision  contained  in  the 
foregoing. 

Third,  The  United  States  will  not  object  to  the  clause  look 
ing  to  the  establishment  of  a  free  port  at  each  end  of  whatever 
canal  may  be  constructed,  if  England  desires  the  clause  to  be 
retained. 

Fourth,  The  clause  in  which  the  two  Governments  agreed  to 
make  treaty  stipulations  for  a  joint  protectorate  of  whatever 
railway  or  canal  might  be  constructed  at  Tehuantepec  or 
Panama  has  never  been  perfected.  No  treaty  stipulations  for 


324  DIPLOMATIC  CORKESPOXDEXCE. 

the  proposed  end  have  been  suggested  by  either  party,  although 
citizens  of  the  United  States  long  since  constructed  a  railway  at 
Panama  and  are  now  engaged  in  the  same  work  at  Tehuantepec. 
It  is  a  fair  presumption,  in  the  judgment  of  the  President,  that 
this  provision  should  be  regarded  as  obsolete  by  the  non-action 
and  common  consent  of  the  two  Governments. 

Fifth,  The  clause  defining  the  distance  from  either  end  of  the 
canal  where,  in  time  of  war,  captures  might  be  made  by  either 
belligerent  on  the  high  seas  was  left  incomplete  and  the  distance 
was  never  determined.  In  the  judgment  of  the  President, 
speaking  in  the  interest  of  peaceful  commerce,  this  distance 
should  be  made  as  liberal  as  possible,  and  might,  with  advan 
tage,  as  a  question  relating  to  the  high  seas  and  common  to  all 
nations,  be  a  matter  of  stipulation  between  the  great  Powers  of 
the  world. 

In  assuming  as  a  necessity  the  political  control  of  whatever 
canal  or  canals  may  be  constructed  across  the  Isthmus,  the 
United  States  will  act  in  entire  harmony  with  the  Governments 
within  whose  territory  the  canals  should  be  located.  Between 
the  United  States  and  the  other  American  Republics  there  can 
be  no  hostility,  no  jealousy,  no  rivalry,  no  distrust.  This  Gov 
ernment  entertains  no  design  in  connection  with  this  project  for 
its  own  advantage  which  is  not  also  for  the  equal  or  greater  ad 
vantage  of  the  country  to  be  directly  and  immediately  affected. 
Nor  does  the  United  States  seek  any  exclusive  or  narrow  com 
mercial  advantage.  It  frankly  agrees,  and  will  by  public  proc 
lamation  declare  at  the  proper  time  in  conjunction  with  the 
republic  on  whose  soil  the  canal  may  be  located,  that  the  same 
rights  and  privileges,  the  same  tolls  and  obligations  for  the  use 
of  the  canal  shall  apply  with  absolute  impartiality  to  the  mer 
chant  marine  of  every  nation  on  the  globe.  Equalty,  in  time 
of  peace,  the  harmless  use  of  the  canal  shall  be  freely  granted 
to  the  war-vessels  of  other  nations.  In  time  of  war,  aside 
from  the  defensive  use  to  be  made  of  it  by  the  country  in 
which  it  is  constructed  and  by  the  United  States,  the  canal  shall 
be  impartially  closed  against  the  war-vessels  of  all  belligerents. 
It  is  the  desire  and  the  determination  of  the  United  States  that 
the  canal  shall  be  used  only  for  the  development  and  increase 
of  peaceful  commerce  among  all  the  nations,  and  shall  not  be 


CLAYTON-BULWER  TREATY  —  IXTEROCEANIC  CANAL.     325 

considered  a  strategic  point  in  warfare  to  tempt  the  aggressions 
of  belligerents,  or  be  seized  under  the  compulsions  of  military 
necessity  by  any  of  the  great  Powers  that  may  have  contests  in 
which  the  United  States  has  no  stake,  and  will  take  no  part. 

If  it  be  asked  why  the  United  States  objects  to  the  assent  of 
European  Powers  to  the  terms  of  neutrality  for  the  operation 
of  the  canal,  the  answer  of  this  Government  is  that  the  right  to 
assent  implies  the  right  to  dissent,  and  thus  the  whole  question 
would  be  thrown  open  for  contention  as  an  international  issue. 
It  is  the  fixed  purpose  of  the  United  States  to  consider  it  strictly 
and  solely  as  an  American  question,  to  be  dealt  with  and  decided 
by  the  American  Powers. 

In  presenting  the  views  contained  herein  to  Lord  Granville, 
you  will  take  occasion  to  say  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  seeks  this  particular  time  for  the  discussion  as  most  op 
portune  and  auspicious.  At  no  period  since  the  peace  of  1783 
have  the  relations  between  the  British  and  American  Govern 
ments  been  so  cordial  and  friendly  as  now.  I  am  sure  Her 
Majesty's  Government  will  find  in  the  views  now  suggested, 
and  the  propositions  now  submitted,  additional  evidence  of  the 
desire  of  this  Government  to  remove  all  possible  grounds  of 
controversy  between  two  nations,  which  have  so  many  interests 
in  common,  and  so  many  reasons  for  honorable  and  lasting 
peace. 

You  will  at  the  earliest  opportunity  acquaint  Lord  Granville 
with  the  purpose  of  the  United  States  touching  the  Clayton- 
Bui  wer  Treaty  and,  in  your  own  way,  you  will  impress  him 
fully  with  the  views  of  your  Government.  I  refrain  from 
directing  that  a  copy  of  this  instruction  be  left  with  his  Lord 
ship,  because,  in  reviewing  the  case,  I  have  necessarily  been 
compelled,  in  drawing  illustrations  from  British  policy,  to  in 
dulge  somewhat  freely  in  the  argumentum  ad  hominem.  This 
course  of  reasoning,  in  an  instruction  to  our  own  minister,  is 
altogether  legitimate  and  pertinent,  and  yet  might  seem  dis 
courteous  if  addressed  directly  to  the  British  Government. 
You  may  deem  it  expedient  to  make  this  explanation  to  Lord 
Granville,  and  if  afterwards  he  shall  desire  a  copy  of  this 
instruction,  you  will,  of  course,  furnish  it. 


326  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

[Third  dispatch   on   the   subject  of   the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  from  Mr. 
Blaine,  Secretary  of  State,  to  Mr.  James  Russell  Lowell,  Minister  at  London.] 


DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  Nov.  20,  1881. 

SIR, —  One  week  after  mailing  my  instruction  to  you  on  the 
19th  instant  touching  the  presentation  to  Her  Majesty's  Gov 
ernment  of  a  proposal  for  the  modification  of  the  convention 
between  the  two  countries,  of  April  19,  1850,  better  known  as 
the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty,  I  received  Mr.  Hoppin's  dispatch 
of  the  llth  instant,  communicating  the  response  of  Lord  Gran- 
ville  to  my  circular  note  of  the  24th  of  June  last  in  relation  to 
the  neutrality  of  any  canal  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama.  I 
regret  that  Mr.  Hoppin  should  not  have  advised  me  by  tele 
graph  of  the  purport  of  his  Lordship's  reply,  as  it  would  have 
enabled  me  to  present  the  arguments  of  my  dispatch  of  the 
19th  instant  in  a  more  specific  form  as  meeting  a  positive  issue 
rather  than  as  generally  dealing  with  a  subject  which  for  thirty 
years  has  been  regarded  in  but  one  light  by  the  public  opinion 
of  the  United  States.  It  seems  proper  now,  however,  in  reply 
to  his  Lordship's  note  of  Nov.  10,  to  give  a  summary  of  the  his 
torical  objections  to  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty,  and  the  very 
decided  differences  of  opinion  between  the  two  governments  to 
which  its  interpretation  has  given  rise. 

I  need  hardly  point  out  to  you  the  well-known  circumstance 
that  even  at  the  time  of  the  conclusion  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
Treaty,  a  very  considerable  opposition  was  shown  thereto  on  the 
part  of  far-sighted  men  in  public  life,  who  correctly  estimated 
the  complications  which  the  uncertain  terms  of  that  compact 
might  occasion.  It  was  ably  contended  in  Congress  that  its 
provisions  did  not,  even  then,  suffice  to  meet  the  real  points 
at  issue  with  respect  'to  the  guarantee  of  the  neutrality  of  the 
whole  American  Isthmus  on  bases  comporting  with  the  National 
interests  of  the  United  States,  and  the  differences  of  inter 
pretation  soon  became  so  marked  as  to  warrant  the  extreme 
proposal  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  refer  them  to  the 
arbitration  of  a  friendly  power. 

The  justice  of  those  doubts  became  still  more  evident  six 
years  later,  when  the  pretensions  put  forth  by  Her  Majesty's 


CLAYTON-BULWER  TREATY  —  INTEROCEANIC  CANAL.     327 

Government  toward  territorial  protection,  if  not  absolute  con 
trol,  of  portions  of  Nicaragua  and  of  the  outlying  Bay  Islands 
brought  up  the  precise  question  as  to  the  extent  to  which 
the  Clay  ton-Bui  wer  compact  restrained  the  projected  move 
ment  ;  and  thereupon  the  interpretations  respectively  put  upon 
that  instrument  by  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  were 
perceived  to  be  in  open  conflict.  The  attempt  made  in  the 
Clarendon-Dallas  Treaty,  which  was  negotiated  on  the  17th 
of  October,  1856,  to  reconcile  these  opposing  contentions,  and 
to  place  the  absolute  and  independent  sovereignty  of  Nicaragua 
over  its  territory  on  an  unmistakable  footing,  so  far  as  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain  were  concerned,  failed  by 
reason  of  the  rejection  by  Her  Majesty's  Government  of  an 
amendment  introduced  by  the  Senate  into  the  Clarendon- 
Dallas  project.  From  that  time  onward  the  inability  of  the 
two  Governments  to  agree  upon  a  common  interpretation  of 
the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  Clay  ton-Bui  wer  Treaty  may  be 
accepted  as  an  historical  fact. 

In  the  discussions  between  the  two  Governments  which  at 
tended  the  failure  of  the  Clarendon-Dallas  Treaty,  the  attitude 
of  the  United  States  with  respect  to  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty 
was  amply  defined.  As  early  as  the  12th  of  March,  1857, 1  find 
that  General  Cass,  then  Secretary  of  State,  in  the  course  of  a 
conference  with  Lord  Napier,  Her  Majesty's  representative  — 

"  passed  some  reflections  on  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  ;  he  had  voted  for  it 
in  the  Senate,  and  in  doing  so  he  believed  that  it  abrogated  all  intervention 
on  the  part  of  England  in  the  Central  American  territory.  The  British 
Government  had  put  a  different  construction  upon  the  treaty,  and  he  regretted 
the  vote  he  had  given  in  its  favor."  (Dispatch  of  Lord  Xapier  to  the  Earl 
of  Clarendon,  March  12,  1857.) 

On  the  6th  of  May,  1857,  President  Buchanan,  in  an  audience 
given  to  Lord  Napier,  and  in  response  to  his  lordship's  sugges 
tion  that  if  the  attempted  adjustment  of  the  difference  between 
the  Governments  as  to  the  Clarendon-Dallas  Treaty  should  fail, 
the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  remained  to  fall  back  upon,  char 
acterized  that  instrument  in  much  stronger  terms  than  General 
Cass  had  done.  To  quote  Lord  Napier's  words  :  — 

"The  President  denounced  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  as  one  which  has 
been  fraught  with  misunderstanding  and  mischief  from  the  beginning;  it 
was  concluded  under  the  most  opposite  constructions  by  the  contracting 


328  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

parties.  If  the  Senate  had  imagined  that  it  could  obtain  the  interpretation 
placed  upon  it  by  Great  Britain,  it  would  not  have  passed.  If  he  had  been 
in  the  Senate  at  the  time,  that  treaty  never  would  have  been  sanctioned." 
(Dispatch  of  Lord  Napier  to  the  Earl  of  Clarendon,  May  6,  1857.) 

These  views  are  more  explicitly  and  formally  repeated  in  a 
note  addressed  by  Secretary  Cass  to  Lord  Napier  on  the  29th 
of  May,  1 857.  He  says :  - 

"  The  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty,  concluded  in  the  hope  that  it  would  put  an 
end  to  the  differences  which  had  arisen  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  concerning  Central  American  affairs,  had  been  rendered  inoperative 
in  some  of  its  most  essential  provisions  by  the  different  constructions  which 
had  been  reciprocally  given  to  it  by  the  parties.  And  little  is  hazarded  in 
saying  that,  had  the  interpretation  since  put  upon  the  treaty  by  the  British 
Government,  and  yet  maintained,  been  anticipated,  it  would  not  have  been 
negotiated  under  the  instructions  of  any  executive  of  the  United  States,  nor 
ratified  by  the  branch  of  the  Government  intrusted  with  the  power  of 
ratification." 

The  publicity  of  these  statements,  and  the  strong  feeling 
which  then  prevailed  in  all  quarters  that  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
Convention  was  inadequate  to  reconcile  the  opposite  views  of 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  towards  Central  America, 
led  to  a  very  decided  conviction  that  the  treaty  should  be  abro 
gated.  Lord  Napier  reflected  this  growing  impression  when,  on 
the  22d  of  June,  1857,  he  wrote  to  Lord  Clarendon  that,  — 

"It  is  probable  that  if  the  pending  discussions  regarding  Central  America 
be  not  closed  during  the  present  summer,  an  attempt  will  be  made  in  the 
next  session  of  Congress  to  set  aside  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty.  .  .  .  There 
can  be  no  doubt  of  the  views  of  the  President  and  Cabinet  in  this  matter." 

Before  this  tendency  could  find  expression  in  any  official 
act,  a  movement  on  the  part  of  Her  Majesty's  Government 
placed  the  whole  matter  in  a  new  aspect.  Sir  William  Gore 
Ouseley  was  sent  out  Oct.  30,  1857,  as  a  special  minister,  with 
the  double  purpose  of  concluding  with  the  Central  American 
States,  and  especially  with  Guatemala  and  Honduras,  settle 
ments  of  the  questions  relative  to  the  Bay  Islands,  the  Mosquito 
Territory,  and  the  boundaries  of  British  Honduras,  and  also  of 
visiting  Washington  on  the  way,  and  conferring  with  the  Secre 
tary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertain 
ing  the  views  of  his  Government,  and  establishing  "a  perfect 
understanding  with  the  United  States  upon  the  points  respect 
ing  which  differences  have  hitherto  existed  between  the  two 


CLAYTOX-BULWER  TREATY— IXTEROCEAXIC   CAXAL.     329 

countries."  Among  these  differences  was  now  superadded  to 
the  territorial  question  of  Mosquito  and  the  Islands,  the  very 
question  which  to-day  most  concerns  us,  the  question  of  inter- 
oceaiiic  communication,  which  had  for  some  time  been  the  occa 
sion  of  correspondence  between  General  Cass  and  Lord  Napier, 
and  in  relation  to  which  General  Cass  wrote,  011  the  20th  of 
October,  1857,  as  follows :  — 

"  I  have  thus  endeavored  to  meet  the  frank  suggestions  of  your  lordship 
by  restating,  with  corresponding  frankness,  the  general  policy  of  the  United 
States  with  respect  to  the  Governments  and  the  interoceanic  transits  of 
Central  America;  but  since  your  lordship  has  referred  to  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
Treaty  of  1850,  as  contemplating  a  'harmonious  course  of  action  and  coun 
sel  between  the  contracting  parties  in  the  settlement  of  Central  American 
interests,'  you  will  pardon  me  for  reminding  your  lordship  that  the  differ 
ences  which  this  treaty  was  intended  to  adjust  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  still  remain  unsettled,  while  the  treaty  itself  has  become 
the  subject  of  new  and  embarrassing  complications." 

Prior  to  the  arrival  of  Sir  William  Ouseley  in  the  United 
States,  Lord  Napier  held  an  important  interview  with  President 
Buchanan  on  the  19th  of  October,  1857,  with  the  object  of 
obtaining  "  further  elucidation  of  the  opinions  of  the  President 
with  reference  to  the  adjustment  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
Treaty."  On  that  occasion  Lord  Napier  declared  that  he  be 
lieved  it  to  be  the  intention  of  Her  Majesty's  Government,  in 
Sir  William  Ouseley 's  mission,  uto  carry  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
Treaty  into  execution  according  to  the  general  tenor  of  the  in 
terpretation  put  upon  it  by  the  United  States ;  but  to  do  so  by 
separate  negotiation  with  the  Central  American  Republics,  in 
lieu  of  a  direct  engagement  with  the  Federal  Government,"  and 
asked  that,  pending  the  negotiation  intrusted  to  Sir  William 
Ouseley,  "no  proposal  to  annul  the  (Clayton-Bulwer)  treaty 
would  be  sanctioned  or  encouraged  "  by  the  President  or  the 
members  of  the  United  States  Government.  To  this  the  Presi 
dent  cheerfully  consented,  and  promised  to  modify  the  state 
ments  in  his  annual  message  to  Congress,  accordingly,  and 
under  no  circumstances  to  countenance  any  attempt  against 
the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  in  Congress. 

Matters  being  in  this  state,  with  Sir  William  Ouseley rs  mis 
sion  announced,  and  the  benevolently  expectant  attitude  of 
the  United  States  toward  it  assured,  Lord  Napier,  on  the  27th 
of  October,  1857,  in  conference  with  General  Cass,  brought  up 


830  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

contingently,  as  a  discarded  alternative  of  his  Government,  a 
former  proposal  to  refer  the  disputed  questions  to  arbitra 
tion  :  — 

"  General  Cass  remarked  in  reply  [says  Lord  Napier,  writing-  to  the  Earl 
of  Clarendon]  that  he  did  not  repudiate  the  principle  of  arbitration  on  all. 
occasions;  he  had  invoked  it,  and  would  do  so  again  where  it  seemed  justly 
applicable,  but  that  in  this  matter  it  was  declined  by  the  American  Govern 
ment  for  the  following  reasons  :  The  language  of  the  treaty  was  so  clear 
that  in  his  opinion  there  ought  not  to  be  two  opinions  about  it.  ...  That 
it  was  a  mere  question  of  the  interpretation  of  the  English  language,  and 
he  held  that  a  foreign  Government  was  not  so  competent  to  decide  in  such 
a  question  as  the  United  States  and  England,  who  possessed  that  language 
in  common." 

The  Earl  of  Clarendon  in  reply  approved  Lord  Napier's 
course  in  broaching  anew  the  suggestion  of  arbitration,  and 
authorized  him  to  renew  formally,  in  writing,  the  offer  to  refer 
the  disputed  questions  arising  out  of  the  interpretation  of  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  to  the  decision  of  any  European  power 
(instruction  of  Nov.  13,  1857),  and  this  was  accordingly  done 
by  Lord  Napier  in  a  note  to  General  Cass,  dated  Nov.  30,  1857. 

In  his  annual  message  to  Congress  in  December,  1857,  Presi 
dent  Buchanan,  after  narrating  the  negotiation  and  failure  of 
the  Clarendon-Dallas  Treaty,  said,  — 

"  The  fact  is,  that  when  two  nations  like  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States,  mutually  desirous,  as  they  are,  and  I  trust  ever  may  be,  of  maintain 
ing  the  most  friendly  relations  with  each  other,  have  unfortunately  con 
cluded  a  treaty  which  they  understand  in  senses  directly  opposite,  the  wisest 
course  is  to  abrogate  such  a  treaty  by  mutual  consent  and  to  commence 
anew.  .  .  .  Whilst  entertaining  these  sentiments,  I  shall  nevertheless  not 
refuse  to  contribute  to  any  reasonable  adjustment  of  the  Central  American 
questions  which  is  not  practically  inconsistent  with  the  American  interpre 
tation  of  the  treaty.  Overtures  for  this  purpose  have  been  recently  made 
by  the  British  Government  in  a  friendly  spirit  which  I  cordially  reciprocate." 

Meanwhile  the  Earl  of  Clarendon  had  instructed  Sir  William 
Ouseley,  under  date  of  Nov.  19,  1857  — 

"not  to  commit  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  any  course  whatever  in 
respect  to  the  Bay  Islands,  till  the  intentions  of  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  in  regard  to  the  treaty  of  1850  are  clearly  ascertained." 

The  situation,  then,  at  the  close  of  1857,  presented  a  triple 
deadlock.  The  United  States  had  agreed  not  to  move  toward 
the  abrogation  of  the  treaty  until  it  could  be  seen  what  inter 
pretation  of  its  provisions  would  result  from  Sir  William  Ouse- 


CLAYTOX-BULWER  TREATY  — IXTEROCEAXIC   CAXAL.     331 

ley's  mission.  Sir  William  had  received  positive  instructions 
not  to  move  until  the  United  States  should  decide  whether  to 
abrogate  the  treaty  or  not;  and  Lord  Napier  was  forbidden 
to  move  until  the  United  States  should  make  formal  answer  to 
the  proposal  for  arbitration.  The  instructions  of  Lord  Claren 
don  to  Lord  Napier,  Jan.  22,  1858,  contained  these  words:  — 

"  We  are  decidedly  of  opinion  that  it  would  neither  be  consistent  with 
our  dignity  nor  our  interest  to  make  any  proposal  to  the  United  States 
Government  until  we  have  received  a  formal  answer  to  our  formal  offer  of 
arbitration.  In  the  event  of  the  offer  being  refused,  it  will  be  a  great  and 
hardly  justifiable  proof  of  the  spirit  of  conciliation  by  which  we  are  ani 
mated,  if  we  then  show  ourselves  disposed  to  abrogate  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
Treaty ;  but  we  must  not  be  in  too  great  haste." 

In  order,  apparently,  to  break  this  deadlock,  Lord  Napier 
wrote  to  General  Cass,  Feb.  17,  1858,  that  — 

"  Something  in  the  nature  of  an  alternative  was  thus  offered  to  the 
American  Cabinet.  Should  the  expedient  of  arbitration  be  adopted,  a  great 
portion  of  Sir  William  Ouseley's  duty  would  be  transferred  to  other  agencies. 
Should  arbitration  be  declined,  it  was  hoped  that  the  efforts  of  Her  Majesty's 
envoy  would  result  in  a  settlement  agreeable  to  the  United  States,  inasmuch 
as  in  essential  points  it  would  carry  the  treaty  of  1850  into  operation  in  a 
manner  practically  conformable  to  the  American  interpretation  of  that 
instrument.*' 

On  the  10th  of  March,  1858,  the  Earl  of  Malmesbury,  who 
had  succeeded  Lord  Clarendon  in  the  foreign  office,  instructed 
Lord  Napier  that  until  an  answer  was  returned  to  the  proposal 
for  arbitration  — 

"  No  further  step  can  be  taken  by  Her  Majesty's  Government  with  that 
of  the  United  States  in  regard  to  that  matter ;  [and  further,  that]  when  this 
point  is  cleared  up,  Her  Majesty's  Government,  supposing  that  the  Govern 
ment  of  the  United  States  decline  arbitration,  will  have  to  determine 
whether  they  should  originate  a  proposal  for  the  abrogation  of  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  Treaty,  or  adopt  any  other  course  which  the  circumstances  at  the 
moment  may  seem  to  recommend." 

It  appears,  however,  that  the  proposal  to  abrogate  the  treaty, 
which  Lord  Malmesbury  reserved  the  right  to  originate,  had 
already  been  communicated  to  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  by  Lord  Napier,  under  instructions  from  Lord  Clarendon. 
In  a  dispatch,  dated  March  22,  1858,  Lord  Napier  wrote  :  — 

"  The  Earl  of  Clarendon  authorized  me  to  inform  General  Cass  that  Her 
Majesty's  Government  would  not  decline  the  consideration  of  a  proposal  for 
the  abrogation  of  the  treaty  by  mutual  concert.  ...  I  have  accordingly,  on 


332  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

two  occasions,  informed  General  Cass  that  if  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  be  still  of  the  same  mind,  and  continue  to  desire  the  abrogation  of 
the  treaty  of  1850,  it  would  be  agreeable  to  Her  Majesty's  Government  that 
they  should  insert  a  proposal  to  that  effect  in  their  reply  to  my  note  respect 
ing"  arbitration." 

Lord  Napier  further  reports  in  detail  the  conversations  which 
he  had  with  General  Cass  as  to  the  most  proper  method  of 
effecting  such  abrogation,  if  agreed  to. 

In  reply  to  this  dispatch  of  Lord  Napier,  the  Earl  of  Malmes- 
bury  instructed  him,  April  8, 1858,  that  his  action  was  approved, 
and  that  he  should  confine  himself  to  pressing  for  an  answer  to 
his  proposal  for  arbitration.  His  Lordship  added  these  signi 
ficant  words  :  — 

"  Her  Majesty's  Government,  if  the  initiative  is  still  left  to  them  by  the 
willingness  of  the  United  States  themselves  to  propose  abrogation,  desire 


to  retain  full  liberty  as  to  the  manner  and  form  in  which  any  such  proposal 
shall  be  laid  on  their  behalf  before  the  Cabinet  at  Washington.  .  .  .  The 
Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  has  been  a  source  of  increasing  embarrassment  to  this 
country  and  Her  Majesty's  Government,  if  they  should  be  so  fortunate  as  to 
extricate  themselves  from  the  difficulties  which  have  resulted  from  it,  will 
not  involve  themselves,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  any  similar  difficulties  for 
the  future." 

The  answer  of  General  Cass,  to  Lord  Napier's  several  propo 
sals,  was  briefly  to  the  effect  that  pending  the  results  expected 
from  Sir  William  Ouseley's  mission  to  the  Central  American 
States,  the  United  States  could  not  adopt  the  alternative  of 
arbitration,  "  even  if  it  had  riot  been  twice  rejected  before," 
and  that  if  — 

"  the  President  does  not  hasten  to  consider  now  the  alternative  of  repeal 
ing  the  treaty  of  1850,  it  is  because  he  does  not  wish  prematurely  to  antici 
pate  the  failure  of  Sir  William  Ouseley's  mission,  and  is  disposed  to  give  a 
new  proof  to  Her  Majesty's  Government  of  his  sincere  desire  to  preserve  the 
amicable  relations  which  now  happily  subsist  between  the  two  countries." 
(General  Cass  to  Lord  Napier,  April  6,  1858.) 

In  this  posture  of  affairs  the  Earl  of  Malmesbury  instructed 
Sir  William  Ouseley  to  open  direct  negotiations  with  the  Cen 
tral  American  States ;  and  on  the  18th  of  August  instructed 
Lord  Napier  to  inform  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of 
the  intentions  and  object  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  in  the 
premises.  His  lordship  added,  — 

"Modification,  arbitration,  and  abrogation  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty 
have  been  flatly  rejected.  Great  Britain  and  Nicaragua  are  now  about  to 
treat  as  independent  states." 


CLAYTOX-BULWER  TREATY  — INTEROCEANIC   CANAL.    333 

I  have  emphasized  the  phrase  "  flatly  rejected,"  in  view  of  a 
subsequent  instruction  of  the  Earl  of  Malmesbury  to  Lord 
Napier,  on  the  8th  of  December,  1858,  wherein  he  said,  — 

"  I  think  you  would  have  done  better  if  you  had  not  too  pointedly 
brought  before  the  United  States  Government  the  notion  that  the  British 
Government  might  view  with  favor  a  proposal  to  abrogate  the  Clayton- 
Bui  wer  Treaty." 

It  is  not  difficult  in  following  this  narrative  to  discern  that 
General  Cass,  though  not  desiring  to  express  it,  had  an  addi 
tional  motive  for  declining  to  propose,  at  that  particular  time, 
the  abrogation  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty.  He  did  not 
desire  by  such  proposed  abrogation  to  indicate  his  willingness 
that  Sir  William  Gore  Ouseley  should  make  treaties  with  the 
separate  states  of  Central  America  unrestrained  by  the  clauses 
of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  inhibiting  the  extension  of  Brit 
ish  power  in  that  region.  General  Cass,  with  his  accustomed 
caution  and  wisdom,  clearly  perceived  that  for  the  United 
States  to  propose  abrogation  on  the  very  eve  of  Sir  William 
Ouseley 's  mission  Avould  lead  to  injurious  inferences  and  would 
imply  conclusions  which  the  United  States  was  not  prepared 
to  admit.  Objectionable  as  General  Cass  thought  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  Treaty,  he  preferred  to  adhere  to  its  terms  rather  than 
give  the  implied  consent  of  this  Government  that  Great  Britain 
should  obtain  such  treaties  as  the  force  of  her  power  might 
secure  in  Central  America.  The  subsequent  note  of  Lord 
Malmesbury,  not  strained  by  an  uncharitable  construction, 
throws  additional  light  on  the  subject  and  confirms  the  wisdom 
of  General  Cass  in  declining  to  propose  abrogation  at  that  time. 
General  Cass  moreover  evidently  desired  to  retain  those  very 
clauses  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  to  which,  in  my  dispatch 
of  the  19th,  I  proposed  on  the  part  of  this  government  to 
adhere. 

I  have  dwelt  with  somewhat  of  detail  on  this  historic  episode, 
partly  because  it  admirably  illustrates  the  spirit  Avith  which 
both  governments  have  regarded  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty 
from  the  first,  and  partly  because  it  had  more  direct  bearing 
on  the  question  of  the  guarantee  of  any  Isthmian  transit  than 
any  other  discussion  of  the  time.  In  perusing  the  voluminous 
correspondence,  the  part  imprinted,  as  well  as  that  printed 


334  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

and  submitted  at  the  time  to  Congress  and  to  Parliament,  T  am 
more  than  ever  struck  by  the  elastic  character  of  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  Treaty,  and  the  purpose  it  has  served  as  an  ultimate 
recourse  on  the  part  of  either  Government  to  check  appre 
hended  designs  in  Central  America  on  the  part  of  the  other, 
although  all  the  while  it  was  frankly  admitted  on  both  sides 
that  the  engagements  of  the  treaty  were  misunderstandingly 
entered  into,  imperfectly  comprehended,  contradictorily  inter 
preted,  and  mutually  vexatious. 

I  am  strengthened  in  this  impression  by  the  circumstance 
that  in  his  response  to  my  dispatch  of  the  24th  of  June  last, 
Earl  Granville  takes  the  ground  that  the  position  of  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States  toward  the  projected  Panama 
Canal  is  determined  by  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty.  How  far 
the  engagements  of  that  compact  extend  to  the  Isthmus  of 
Panama,  in  the  sense  in  which  they  extend  to  the  projected 
Nicaraguan  transit  under  the  provisions  of  Article  VIII. ,  does 
not  seem  likely  to  become  a  subject  for  discussion  between  the 
two  Governments.  For  it  will  be  observed  that  this  article 
does  not  stretch  the  guarantees  and  restrictions  of  Article  I. 
over  either  the  Tehuantepec  route  through  Mexican  territory, 
or  the  Panama  route  through  Colombian  territory.  It  is  in 
terms  an  agreement  to  extend  the  protection  of  both  countries, 
by  treaty  stipulations,  to  those  or  any  other  practicable  water 
ways  or  railways  from  ocean  to  ocean  across  the  Isthmus, 
outside  of  Nicaragua,  Costa  Rica,  the  Mosquito  Coast,  or  any 
part  of  Central  America.  So  far  as  this  inchoate  agreement 
to  agree  hereafter  is  applicable  to  the  Panama  transit,  I  have 
amply  shown,  in  my  dispatch  of  the  19th  instant,  that  the 
obligations  embraced  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  in  con 
cluding  the  prior  convention  with  the  Republic  of  New  Granada 
(now  Colombia)  in  1846,  require  that  the  United  States  should 
be  freed  from  unequal  and  inequitable  obligations  to  Great 
Britain  under  the  vague  and  as  yet  unperfected  compact  of  1850. 

My  main  object  in  writing  this  instruction  has  been  to 
strengthen  you  in  any  discussion  which  may  now  ensue  as  to 
the  benefits  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty,  and  the  mutual 
interest  of  the  two  countries  in  conserving  it  as  the  basis  of  a 
settlement  of  all  questions  between  them  touching  Central 


CLAYTOX-BULWER  TREATY—  INTEROCEANIC   CANAL.     335 

American  and  Isthmian  questions.  It  will  be  seen  that  from 
the  time  of  its  conclusion  in  1850  until  the  end  of  1858,  its  pro 
visions  were  thrice  made  the  basis  of  a  proposal  to  arbitrate  as 
to  their  meaning,  that  modification  and  abrogation  have  been 
alike  contingently  considered,  and  that  its  vexatious  and  imper 
fect  character  has  been  repeatedly  recognized  on  both  sides. 
The  present  proposal  of  this  Government  is  to  free  it  from  those 
embarrassing  features,  and  leave  it,  as  its  framers  intended  it 
should  be,  a  full  and  perfect  settlement,  for  all  time,  of  all  pos 
sible  issues  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  with 
regard  to  Central  America. 

If  in  your  conferences  with  Earl  Granville  it  should  seem 
necessary,  you  will  make  free  use  of  the  precedents  I  have  cited, 
and  should  you,  within  the  discretionary  limits  confided  at  the 
end  of  my  dispatch  of  June  24th,  have  given  a  copy  thereof  to 
his  lordship,  you  are  equally  at  liberty  to  let  him  have  a  copy 
of  this  also,  with  the  same  explanation,  that  it  is  for  your  use, 
and  not  written  as  a  formal  note  for  communication  to  Her 
Majesty's  Government. 


336  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 


ARBITRARY    ARRESTS    IN    IRELAND. 


[Dispatch  from  Secretary  Elaine  to  Mr.  Lowell,  American  Minister  at  London. | 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  May  26,  1881. 

SIR,  —  Since  my  instruction  of  the  31st  of  March  last,  in 
reply  to  yours  of  the  12th  of  that  month,  touching  the  case 
of  Mr.  Michael  P.  Boyton,  I  have  received  your  dispatches  of 
March  21,  of  March  25,  and  April  7,  all  relating  to  the  same 
subject.  The  prudence  you  have  shown  in  dealing  with  Mr. 
Boyton's  claim  of  citizenship  is  commendable,  and  the  state 
ments  as  to  the  law  in  his  case,  made  in  your  letters  to  him, 
are  in  full  accord  with  the  interpretation  of  this  Department. 

In  answer  to  a  resolution  of  the  Senate,  calling  for  the  facts 
and  correspondence  in  the  matter,  I  laid  before  the  President 
a  full  report,  which  was  communicated  to  the  Senate  on  the 
20th  instant.  In  that  report  I  showed  that  the  evidence  pre 
sented  by  Mr.  Boyton  himself,  and  by  his  friends  here  in  his 
behalf,  was  not  such  as  to  prove  his  claim  to  citizenship  under 
our  laws. 

Had  his  citizenship  been  established,  I  should  not  have  hesi 
tated  to  do  for  him  all  that  I  could  properly  do  for  an  Ameri 
can  citizen,  accused  of  offending  against  British  law  in  British 
jurisdiction.  How  far  such  protection  would  avail  to  relieve 
an  American  citizen  from  the  operation  of  a  British  law,  is  a 
point  upon  which  I  am  not  prepared  to  express  an  opinion,  in 
view  especially  of  the  fact  that  a  copy  of  the  so-called  "  Coer 
cion  Act,"  under  which'  the  Boyton  proceedings  were  had,  has 
not  yet  reached  the  Department.  As  described  by  the  public 
press,  it  contains  provisions  giving  a  latitude  of  action  to  the 
British  authorities  which  this  Government  would  be  loath  to  see 
insisted  upon  in  the  case  of  an  American  citizen.  For  example, 


ARBITRARY  ARRESTS  IN  IRELAND.  337 

upon  reasonable  suspicion  of  the  commission,  within  a  fixed 
time  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  law,  of  an  act  therein  denned 
as  giving  cause  for  arrest,  the  authorities  are  understood  to  be 
empowered  to  decree  the  detention  of  any  person,  and  his 
imprisonment  for  a  prolonged  period  without  the  obligation  of 
speedy  trial  or  the  production  of  proof  of  criminality.  While 
in  some  sense  an  ex  post  facto  enactment,  it  is  in  others  a  con 
ferment  of  arbitrary  and  irresponsible  power,  and,  in  either 
view,  repugnant  to  the  principles  of  civil  liberty  and  personal 
rights  which  are  the  common  possession  of  British  and  Ameri 
can  jurisprudence. 

That  the  fact  of  American  citizenship  could,  of  itself,  oper 
ate  to  exempt  any  one  from  the  penalties  of  a  law  which  he  had 
violated,  is,  of  course,  an  untenable  proposition.  Conversely, 
however,  the  proposition  that  a  retroactive  law,  suspending  at 
will  the  simplest  operations  of  justice,  could  be  applied  without 
question  to  an  American  citizen,  is  one  to  which  this  •Govern 
ment  would  not  give  anticipatory  assent. 

In  the  specific  case  of  Mr.  Boyton,  it  is  inferred  from  your 
statement  of  the  facts  that  the  act  complained  of,  the  incite 
ment  of  divers  persons  to  murder  divers  other  persons,  was 
committed  subsequently  to  the  passage  of  the  Protection  Act. 
Had  Mr.  Boyton's  American  citizenship  been  established,  we 
could  not,  in  view  of  this,  have  pleaded  the  retroactive  appli 
cation  of  the  law.  Neither  could  we  have  decently  protested 
against  the  application  of  some  process  of  law  where  so  grave 
an  offense  was  charged  against  a  foreigner  while  a  guest  in  the 
dominions  of  a  friendly  state.  The  allegation  that  such  an  act 
was  done  by  an  alien  and  a  guest,  while  throwing  upon  the 
country  to  which  the  offender  owes  allegiance  no  duty  to  de 
fend  him  or  disprove  his  crime,  on  the  other  hand  does  not 
absolve  the  justice  of  the  country  where  the  commission  of  the 
act  is  alleged,  from  the  burden  of  proving  the  guilt  of  the 
criminal  by  due  course  of  law  within  a  reasonable  time,  or,  in 
default  of  prompt  and  lawful  proof,  from  the  obligation  of 
releasing  him.  Immunity  would  not  be  asked,  but  prompt  and 
certain  justice,  under  the  usual  and  unstrained  operation  of 
law,  would  be  certainly  expected. 

I  have  set  these  views  before  you  hypothetically,  as  suggested 


338  DIPLOMATIC    CORRESPONDENCE. 

by  Mr.  Boyton's  case,  not  as  applicable  thereto.  It  is  not 
desired  that  you  should  communicate  them  to  Her  Majesty's 
Government  in  advance  of  any  case  warranting  our  interven 
tion,  but  you  will  bear  them  in  mind  if  a  contingency  should 
unhappily  arise  calling  for  your  interposition. 

[Dispatch  from  Secretary  Elaine  to  Mr.  Lowell,  American  Minister  at  London.] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  June  2,  1881. 

SIR, —  Referring  to  my  general  instruction  of  the  26th  ultimo, 
in  relation  to  the  case  of  Michael  P.  Boy  ton,  I  now  inclose  to 
you  a  copy  of  a  letter  of  the  30th  of  the  same  month  from  the 
Honorable  Samuel  J.  Randall,  in  behalf  of  Mr.  Joseph  B. 
Walsh,  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  who,  it  appears,  was 
arrested  on  the  3d  of  March  last,  under  the  provisions  of  the 
late  act  of  Parliament,  known  as  the  "  Protection  Act."  Mr. 
Walsh  is  represented  as  being  imprisoned  in  Dublin,  and  it  is 
probable  that  Kilmainham  Jail  is  the  place  of  confinement.  His 
relatives  in  this  country,  knowing  only  of  his  arrest  and  impris 
onment,  are  unable  to  afford  the  Department  any  information 
as  to  the  specific  charge,  if  any,  upon  which  he  is  held ;  and  it 
seems  probable  that  the  prisoner  himself  is  in  ignorance  in 
regard  to  the  particular  offense  for  which  he  is  thus  subjected 
to  summary  detention  and  confinement. 

Mr.  Walsh  has  been  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  since  1875. 
His  character  as  a  law-abiding  citizen  is  vouched  for  by  well- 
known  and  respectable  citizens  of  Pennsylvania.  I  enclose  a 
copy  of  his  certificate  of  naturalization. 

I  have  already  indicated  to  you  in  my  instruction  of  the  26th 
of  May,  the  entire  absence  of  any  disposition  on  the  part  of  this 
Government  to  interfere  with  the  administration  of  the  local  or 
general  municipal  laws  of  Great  Britain.  The  laws  of  that 
country,  arid  especially  those  that  relate  to  the  personal  liberty 
and  security  of  the  citizen,  have  always  been  so  much  in  har 
mony  with  the  principles  of  jurisprudence  cherished  by  Ameri 
cans  as  a  birthright,  that  they  have  never  failed  to  command 
the  respect  of  the  Government  and  people  of  the  United  States. 
But  whatever  the  necessity  may  be  in  the  estimation  of  Her 
Majesty's  Government  for  the  existence  and  enforcement  in 


ARBITRARY  ARRESTS  IN  IRELAND.  339 

Ireland  of  the  exceptional  legislative  measures  recently  enacted 
in  respect  to  that  country,  this  Government  cannot  view  with 
unconcern  the  application  of  the  summary  proceedings  attend 
ant  upon  the  execution  of  these  measures  to  naturalized  citizens 
of  the  United  States  of  Irish  origin,  whose  business  relations 
ma}^  render  necessary  their  presence  in  any  part  of  the  United 
Kingdom,  or  whose  filial  instincts  and  love  for  kindred  may 
have  prompted  them  to  revisit  their  native  country. 

If  American  citizens  within  British  jurisdiction  offend  against 
British  laws,  this  Government  will  not  seek  to  shield  them 
from  the  legal  consequences  of  their  acts.  But  it  must  insist 
upon  the  application  to  their  cases  of  those  common  principles 
of  criminal  jurisprudence  which  in  the  United  States  secure 
to  every  man  who  offends  against  its  laws,  whether  he  be  an 
American  citizen  or  a  foreign  subject,  those  safeguards  to  per 
sonal  liberty  which  afford  the  strongest  protection  against 
oppression  under  the  forms  of  law. 

That  an  accused  person  shall  immediately  upon  arrest  be 
informed  of  the  specific  crime  or  offense  upon  which  he  is  held, 
and  that  he  shall  be  afforded  an  opportunity  for  a  speedy  trial 
before  an  impartial  court  and  jury,  are  essentials  to  every  crim 
inal  prosecution,  necessary  alike  to  the  protection  of  innocence 
and  the  ascertainment  of  guilt.  You  will  lose  no  time  in  mak 
ing  the  necessary  inquiries  into  the  cause  of  Mr.  Walsh's  arrest 
and  detention,  in  which  it  is  probable  that  Mr.  Barrows,  the 
consul  at  Dublin,  may  be  able  to  aid  you.  If  you  shall  find 
that  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  in  the  light  of  this  and  pre 
vious  instructions,  are  such  as  to  call  for  interference  011  the 
part  of  this  Government,  you  will  make  such  temperate  but 
earnest  representations  as  in  your  judgment  will  conduce  to  his 
speedy  trial,  or  in  case  there  is  no  specific  charge  against  him, 
to  his  prompt  release. 


340  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 


OPPRESSION    OF    THE    HEBREWS    IN    RUSSIA. 


[The  following  dispatch  was  written  by  Secretary  Elaine  to  James  Russell 
Lowell,  United  States  Minister  at  London.] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 
WASHINGTON,  D.C.,  Nov.  22,  1881. 

SIR,  —  On  the  26th  of  July  last,  you  transmitted  a  memo 
randum  of  the  laws  and  police  regulations  of  Russia  affecting 
persons  of  the  Hebrew  faith,  which  you  had  received  from  Sir 
Charles  Dilke,  one  of  Her  Majesty's  Under  Secretaries  of 
State  for  Foreign  Affairs.  Although  no  information  was  then 
given  as  to  the  motive  of  this  courteous  and  acceptable  com 
munication,  I  naturally  inferred  that  it  was  in  a  measure  the 
result  of  the  consultations  which  the  United  States  Minister  at 
St.  Petersburg  had  been  directed  to  hold  informally  with  his 
British  colleague  at  that  court  touching  the  treatment  of  such 
American  or  British  Jews  as  should,  because  of  business  en 
gagements  or  other  causes  calling  them  to  Russia,  unfortunately 
find  themselves  under  the  operation  of  the  prescriptive  laws  of 
the  empire  against  all  Israelites,  native  or  foreign. 

The  question  has  for  some  years  seriously  engaged  the  atten 
tion  of  this  Government  as  presented  in  the  cases  of  American 
citizens  of  Hebrew  faith  visiting  Russia  on  peaceful,  law- 
observing  errands.  Under  the  direction  of  the  late  President 
Garfield  the  representation  of  what  we  believed  to  be  our  just 
claims  in  the  premises  was  vigorously  renewed  through  the 
United  States  Minister  at  St.  Petersburg  by  means  of  instruc 
tions,  of  which  I  enclose  for  your  information  copies,  with  the 
relative  annexes.  Those  instructions  still  properly  reflect  the 
opinion  of  this  Government  that  there  should  be  a  change  in 
the  treatment  of  American  Israelites  in  Russia.  The  circum 
stance  that  the  case  of  Mr.  Lewisohn,  a  British  subject  expelled 


OPPRESSION  OF  THE  HEBREWS  IN  RUSSIA.          341 

from  the  Russian  capital,  attracted  the  attention  of  Her  Majes 
ty's  Government,  suggests  to  the  President  that  the  almost 
identical  interests  of  the  two  Governments  in  the  premises 
justify  similar  action  on  their  part. 

The  dispatches  of  the  American  Envoy  at  St.  Petersburg 
show  that  the  Russian  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  has  made 
frequent  assertions  of  a  strong  desire  on  the  part  of  his  Govern 
ment  to  seek  a  solution  which  would  harmonize  all  interests. 
While  declining  to  admit  that  the  existing  convention  may 
exempt  American  citizens  from  abject  submission  to  the  reli 
gious  laws  of  the  land,  the  minister  has  on  several  occasions 
promised  that  the  military  authorities,  in  the  enforcement  of 
those  laws,  would  give  to  American  citizens  the  widest  practi 
cable  latitude  in  interpreting  the  obligations  of  the  statutes. 
In  point  of  fact,  it  is  believed  that  American  (and  presumably 
British)  sojourners  in  Russia  enjoy,  under  the  almost  absolute 
discretionary  powers  of  the  imperial  military  commanders,  the 
privileges  and  immunities  which  are  granted  to  any  foreigners. 
This  Government  conceives,  however,  that  it  should  not  be 
content  with  leaving  the  persons  and  the  material  interest  of 
its  citizens  in  Russia  to  the  discretionary  control  of  the  military 
power,  however  friendly  its  declared  purpose  may  be.  In  this 
conception  it  may  very  properly  assume  to  be  joined  by  Her 
Majesty's  Government,  which  has  ever  been  watchfully  jealous 
of  the  moral  freedom  of  its  subjects  in  foreign  lands. 

It  must  be  inexpressibly  painful  to  the  enlightened  statesman 
of  Great  Britain,  as  well  as  of  America,  to  see  a  discarded  preju 
dice  of  the  Dark  Ages  gravely  revived  at  this  day  —  to  witness 
an  attempt  to  base  the  policy  of  a  great  and  sovereign  State  on 
the  mistaken  theory  that  thrift  is  a  crime  of  which  the  unthrifty 
are  the  innocent  victims,  and  that  discontent  and  disaffection 
are  to  be  diminished  by  increasing  the  causes  from  which  they 
arise.  No  student  of  history  need  be  reminded  of  the  lessons 
taught  by  the  persecutions  of  the  Jews  in  Central  Europe  and 
on  the  Spanish  Peninsula.  Then,  as  in  Russia  to-day,  the 
Hebrew  fared  better  in  business  than  his  neighbor  ;  then,  as 
now,  his  economy  and  patient  industry  bred  capital,  and  capital 
bred  envy,  and  envy  bred  persecution,  and  persecution  bred 
disaffection  and  social  separation.  The  old  tradition  moves  in 


342  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

its  unvarying  circle  —  the  Hebrews  are  made  a  people  apart 
from  other  people,  not  of  their  own  volition,  but  because  they 
have  been  repressed  and  ostracised  by  the  communities  in  which 
they  reside.  In  Great  Britain  and  in  the  United  States  the 
Israelite  is  not  segregated  from  his  fellow-men.  His  equal  part 
in  our  social  framework  is  unchallenged,  his  thrift  and  industry 
add  to  the  wealth  of  the  State,  and  his  loyalty  and  patriotism 
are  unquestioned. 

It  was  perfectly  clear  to  the  mind  of  the  late  President  that 
an  amelioration  of  the  treatment  of  American  Israelites  in 
Russia  could  result  only  from  a  very  decided  betterment  of  the 
condition  of  the  native  Hebrews,  that  any  steps  taken  toward 
the  relief  of  one  would  necessarily  re-act  in  favor  of  the  other, 
and  that,  under  all  the  peculiar  and  abnormal  aspects  of  the 
case,  it  is  competent  and  proper  to  urge  the  subject  upon  the 
attention  of  Russia.  To  his  successor  in  the  Chief  Magistracy, 
these  conclusions  are  no  less  evident,  and  I  am  charged  by  the 
President  to  bring  the  subject  to  the  formal  attention  of  Her 
Britannic  Majesty's  Government,  in  the  firm  belief  that  the 
community  of  interests  between  the  United  States  and  England 
in  this  great  question  of  civil  rights  and  equal  tolerance  of 
creed  for  their  respective  citizens  in  foreign  lands  will  lead  to 
consideration  of  the  matter  with  a  view  to  common  action 
thereon.  It  would  seem,  moreover,  a  propitious  time  to  initiate 
a  movement  which  might  also  embrace  other  Powers  whose 
service  in  the  work  of  progress  is  commensurate  with  our  own, 
to  the  end  that  Russia  may  be  influenced  by  their  joint  repre 
sentations  and  that  their  several  citizens  and  subjects  visiting 
the  Empire  on  law-observing  missions  of  private  interest  shall 
no  longer  be  met  with  subjection  of  conscience  to  military  forms 
and  procedure  which  obtain  nowhere  else  in  Europe. 

You  may  read  this  dispatch  to  Lord  Granville,  and,  if  he 
desires  it,  leave  with  him  a  copy.  You  will  say  to  him  that, 
while  abating  no  part  of  his  intention  to  press  upon  the  Russian 
Government  the  just  claim  of  American  citizens  to  less  harsh 
treatment  in  the  Empire  by  reason  of  their  faith,  the  President 
will  await  with  pleasure  an  opportunity  for  an  interchange  of 
views  upon  the  subject  with  the  Government  of  Her  Majesty. 


THE  WAR  BETWEEN  PERU,  CHILI,  AND  BOLIVIA.  343 


DISPATCHES    CONCERNING    THE    WAR    BETWEEN 
PERU,    CHILI,    AND    BOLIVIA.1 


[Mr.  Blaine,  Secretary  of  State,  to  Mr.  Christiancy,  Minister  at  Peru,  in 
structing  him  on  a  certain  basis  of  fact  to  recognize  the  Government  of 
Calderon.] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  May  9,  1881. 

SIK,  —  In  your  last  dispatch  you  informed  this  Department 
that  the  Chilian  Government  refused  absolutely  to  recognize 
General  Pidrola  as  representing  the  civil  authority  in  Peru, 
and  that  Senor  Calderon  was  at  the  head  of  a  provisional 
government. 

If  the  Calderon  Government  is  supported  by  the  character 
and  intelligence  of  Peru  and  is  really  endeavoring  to  restore 
constitutional  government  with  a  view  both  to  domestic  order 
and  negotiation  with  Chili  for  peace,  you  may  recognize  it  as 
the  existing  Provisional  government,  and  render  what  aid  you 
can  by  advice  and  good  offices  to  that  end. 

Mr.  Elmore  has  been  received  by  me  as  the  confidential  agent 
of  such  Provisional  government. 

[Letter  of  instructions  from  Secretary  Blaine  to  Mr.  Hurlbut  when  he  left 
the  United  States  on  his  mission  to  Peru.] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  Juue  15,  1881. 

SIR,  —  The  deplorable  condition  of  Peru,  the  disorganization 
of  its  government,  and  the  absence  of  precise  and  trustworthy 
information  as  to  the  state  of  affairs  now  existing  in  that  un 
happy  country,  render  it  impossible  to  give  you  instructions  as 
full  and  definite  as  I  should  desire. 

1  Mr.  Elaine's  instructions  to  our  Minister  to  Peru  will  first  be  given;  then  his 
instructions  to  our  Minister  to  Chili. 


344  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

Judging  from  the  most  recent  dispatches  of  our  ministers, 
you  will  probably  find  on  the  part  of  the  Chilian  authorities 
in  possession  of  Peru  a  willingness  to  facilitate  the  establish 
ment  of  the  Provisional  government  which  has  been  attempted 
by  Serior  Calderon.  If  so  you  will  do  all  you  properly  can  to 
encourage  the  Peruvians  to  accept  any  reasonable  conditions 
and  limitations  with  which  this  concession  may  be  accompa 
nied.  It  is  vitally  important  to  Peru  that  she  be  allowed  to 
resume  the  functions  of  a  native  and  orderly  government,  both 
for  the  purposes  of  internal  administration  and  the  negotiation 
of  peace.  To  obtain  this  end  it  would  be  far  better  to  accept 
conditions  which  may  be  hard  and  unwelcome  than  by  demand 
ing  too  much  to  force  the  continuance  of  the  military  control 
of  Chili.  It  is  hoped  that  you  will  be  able,  in  your  necessary 
association  with  the  Chilian  authorities,  to  impress  upon  them 
that  the  more  liberal  and  considerate  their  policy,  the  surer  it 
will  be  to  obtain  a  lasting  and  satisfactory  settlement.  The 
Peruvians  must  be  aware  of  the  sympathy  of  the  people  and 
Government  of  the  United  States,  and  will,  I  feel  confident,  be 
prepared  to  give  to  your  representations  the  consideration  to 
which  the  friendly  anxiety  of  this  Government  entitles  them. 

The  United  States  cannot  refuse  to  recognize  the  rights 
which  the  Chilian  Government  has  acquired  by  the  successes 
of  the  war,  and  it  may  be  that  a  cession  of  territory  will  be 
the  necessary  price  to  be  paid  for  peace.  It  would  seem  to  be 
injudicious  for  Peru  to  declare  that  under  no  circumstances 
could  the  loss  of  territory  be  accepted  as  the  result  of  negotia 
tion.  The  great  objects  of  the  Provisional  authorities  of  Peru 
would  seem  to  be  to  secure  the  establishment  of  a  Constitu 
tional  government,  and  next,  to  succeed  in  the  opening  of 
negotiations  for  peace  without  the  declaration  of  preliminary 
conditions  as  an  ultimatum  on  either  side.  It  will  be  difficult, 
perhaps,  to  obtain  this  from  Chili ;  but  as  the  Chilian  Govern 
ment  has  distinctly  repudiated  the  idea  that  this  is  a  war  of 
conquest,  the  Government  of  Peru  may  fairly  claim  the  oppor 
tunity  to  make  propositions  of  indemnity  and  guarantee  before 
submitting  to  a  cession  of  territory.  As  far  as  the  influence 
of  the  United  States  extends  in  Chili,  it  will  be  exerted  to 
induce  the  Chilian  Government  to  consent  that  the  question 


THE  WAR  BETWEEN  PERU,  CHILI,  AND  BOLIVIA.    345 

of  the  cession  of  territory  should  be  the  subject  of  negotiation 
and  not  the  condition  precedent  upon  which  alone  negotiation 
shall  begin.  If  you  can  aid  the  Government  of  Peru  in  secur 
ing  such  a  result,  you  will  have  rendered  the  service  which 
seems  most  pressing.  Whether  it  is  in  the  power  of  the  Peru 
vian  Government  to  make  any  arrangements  at  home  or  abroad, 
singly  or  with  the  assistance  of  friendly  powers,  which  will 
furnish  the  necessary  indemnity  or  supply  the  required  guaran 
tee,  you  will  be  better  able  to  advise  me  after  you  have  reached 
your  post. 

As  you  are  aware  more  than  one  proposition  has  been  sub 
mitted  to  the  consideration  of  this  Government  looking  to  a 
friendly  intervention  by  which  Peru  might  be  enabled  to  meet 
the  conditions  which  would  probably  be  imposed.  Circum 
stances  do  not  seem  at  present  opportune  for  such  action  ;  but 
if,  upon  full  knowledge  of  the  condition  of  Peru,  you  can 
inform  this  Government  that  Peru  can  devise  and  carry  into 
practical  effect  a  plan  by  which  all  the  reasonable  conditions 
of  Chili  can  be  met  without  sacrificing  the  integrity  of  Peru 
vian  territory,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  would  be 
willing  to  tender  its  good  offices  towards  the  execution  of  such 
a  project. 

As  a  strictly  confidential  communication,  I  enclose  you  a 
copy  of  instructions  sent  this  day  to  the  United  States  minister 
at  Santiago.  You  will  thus  be  advised  of  the  position  which 
this  Government  assumes  toward  all  the  parties  to  this  deplor 
able  conflict.  It  is  the  desire  of  the  United  States  to  act  in  a 
spirit  of  the  sincerest  friendship  to  the  three  republics,  and  to 
use  its  influence  solely  in  the  interest  of  an  honorable  and 
lasting  peace. 

[Secretary  Elaine's  instructions  to  Minister  Hurlbut  concerning  certain 
alleged  American  claims  against  Peru.] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATI 

WASHINGTON,  Aug.  4,1881. 

SIR,  —  As  you  are  aware  several  communications  have  been 
recently  addressed  to  this  Department  in  reference  to  certain 
alleged  claims  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  upon  the  Govern 
ment  of  Peru,  with  most  earnest  request  for  the  good  offices  of 


346  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

the  United  States  Government  in  their  behalf.  While  I  cannot 
anticipate  that  in  the  present  distressed  and  unsettled  condi 
tion  of  that  country  our  representations,  however  urgent,  will 
receive  prompt  or  satisfactory  attention,  I  deem  it  best,  in  view 
of  possible  contingencies,  to  furnish  you  with  general  instruc 
tions.  The  two  claims  for  which  special  consideration  and 
active  intervention  have  been  asked  are  those  known  as  the 
Cochet  claim  and  the  Landreau  claim.  In  reference  to  the 
Cochet  claim  no  information  has  been  laid  before  the  Depart 
ment  of  a  sufficiently  definite  character  to  warrant  a  specific 
instruction,  and  in  the  absence  of  the  requisite  data  here 
you  will  be  left  to  take  such  steps  as  may  seem  expedient 
on  investigating  the  origin  and  character  of  the  claim.  The 
primal  point  at  issue  is  whether  any  American  citizen  or  asso 
ciation  of  citizens  has  acquired  an  interest  in  the  claim  in  a 
manner  entitling  him  or  them  to  the  good  offices  of  this  Govern 
ment  in  making  any  representation  to  Peru.  As  the  American 
holders  of  the  claim  or  their  attorneys  will  be  on  the  ground, 
you  will  no  doubt  be  placed  in  possession  of  all  the  facts,  but 
you  will  take  no  step  committing  your  Government  to  the  use 
of  its  good  offices  without  first  reporting  in  full  to  the  Depart 
ment  for  well-considered  and  definite  instruction.  In  regard 
to  the  Landreau  claim,  I  see  no  reason  to  differ  from  the  con 
clusion  to  which  my  predecessors  seem  to  have  arrived.  John 
C.  Landreau  was  an  American  citizen,  apparently  entitled 
under  a  lawful  contract  to  reasonable  compensation  for  impor 
tant  services  to  Peru.  While  in  conformity  with  the  estab 
lished  practice  of  our  Government,  you  cannot  in  such  case 
make  an  official  demand  for  the  settlement  of  this  claim,  you 
will  employ  your  good  offices  to  procure  its  prompt  and  just 
consideration.  You  will  have  observed  that  in  the  contract 
made  by  the  Peruvian  Government  with  Landreau  and  his 
brother  it  is  expressly  stipulated  that  any  questions  arising 
under  its  provisions  shall  be  submitted  to  the  judicial  tribunal 
of  Peru,  and  that  in  no  case"  shall  diplomatic  intervention  be 
asked.  You  will  also  notice  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  Peru, 
sustaining  a  decision  of  the  court  below,  has  ruled  that  it  had 
no  jurisdiction  of  this  contract,  thus  leaving  Landreau  in  a  posi 
tion  in  which  he  can  neither  appeal  to  his  own  Government  nor 


THE  WAR  BETWEEN  PERU,  CHILI,  AND  BOLIVIA.    347 

obtain  a  judgment  from  the  tribunals  to  which,  by  the  contract, 
he  was  authorized  to  apply. 

While  this  Government  will  not,  as  at  present  informed, 
undertake  to  construe  the  contract  or  to  decide  upon  the  extent 
of  the  compensation  due  to  Landreau,  you  are  instructed  to  call 
the  attention  of  the  Peruvian  Government  to  this  injustice,  and 
to  say  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  will  expect 
some  adequate  and  proper  means  to  be  provided  by  which 
Landreau  can  obtain  a  judicial  decision  upon  his  rights.  If  the 
constitution  of  the  Peruvian  courts  or  the  interpretation  of  the 
law  by  Peruvian  judges  deprives  Landreau  of  the  justice  which 
the  contract  itself  guaranteed  him,  then,  in  the  opinion  of  this 
Government,  Peru  is  bound  in  duty  and  in  honor,  to  do  one  of 
three  things  :  —  Supply  an  impartial  tribunal,  extend  the  juris 
diction  of  the  present  courts,  or  submit  the  case  of  Landreau 
to  arbitration. 

I  desire  also  to  direct  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  the 
anticipated  treaty  which  is  to  adjust  the  future  relations  of  Chili 
and  Peru,  the  latter  may  possibly  be  compelled  to  submit  to  the 
loss  of  territory.  If  the  territory  to  be  surrendered  should  in 
clude  the  guano  deposits  which  were  discovered  by  Landreau, 
and  for  the  discovery  of  which  Peru  contracted  to  pay  him  a 
royalty  upon  the  tonnage  removed,  then  the  Peruvian  Govern 
ment  should,  in  the  treaty,  stipulate  with  Chili  for  the  preserva 
tion  and  payment  to  Landreau  of  the  amount  due  under  his 
contract.  If  transfer  be  made  to  Chili  it  should  be  understood 
that  this  claim  of  an  American  citizen,  if  fairly  adjudicated  in 
his  favor,  shall  be  treated  as  a  proper  lien  on  the  property  to 
which  it  attaches,  and  that  Chili  accepts  the  cession  with  that 
condition  annexed.  As  it  may  be  presumed  that  you  will  be 
fully  informed  of  the  progress  of  the  negotiations  between  Chili 
and  Peru  for  a  treaty  of  peace,  you  will  make  such  effort 
as  you  judiciously  can  to  secure  for  Landreau  a  fair  settlement 
of  his  claim.  You  will  take  special  care  to  notify  both  the 
Chilian  and  Peruvian  authorities  of  the  character  and  status  of 
the  claim  in  order  that  no  definitive  treaty  of  peace  shall  be 
made  in  disregard  of  the  rights  which  Landreau  may  be  found 
to  possess. 


848  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

[On  the  14th  of  September,  Mr.  Hurlbut  in  acknowledging  the  foregoing  dis 
patch,  called  the  "special  attention  of  the  Secretary  of  State  to  the  extracts  (en 
closed)  from  a  letter  of  Mr.  J.  R.  Shipherd  to  him."  Mr.  Hurlbut  stated  that 
he  had  received  no  telegrams  and  no  instructions  from  the  State  Department 
touching  the  "points  reported  by  Mr.  Shipherd,"  and  stated  further  that  he  had 
no  faith  in  Mr.  Shipherd  or  his  schemes.  When  the  dispatch  was  received  in 
Washington,  Secretary  Elaine  was  engaged,  as  he  was  for  some  three  weeks, 
with  the  French  and  German  visitors  who  came  to  the  United  States  to  attend 
the  Yorktown  Centennial.  On  the  17th  of  November  the  Secretary  sent  the 
following  dispatch  to  Mr.  Hurlbut :  — ] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  Nov.  17,  1881. 

Sm,  —  Your  dispatch  in  reference  to  the  Cochet  and  Landreau 
claims,  indicates  a  prudent  and  discreet  course  on  your  part. 
After  my  instruction  in  regard  to  this  subject  had  been  mailed 
I  became  convinced  that  there  was  no  need  of  even  the  pre 
liminary  inquiry,  which  I  suggested  in  regard  to  the  Cochet 
claim.  There  is  no  just  ground  whatever  on  which  this  Gov 
ernment  could  intervene  on  behalf  of  it.  So  far  as  there 
may  be  any  basis  for  the  claim,  it  originates  in  the  demand 
of  a  native  Peruvian  against  his  Government.  If  American 
citizens  purchased  an  interest  in  such  claim  they  purchased 
nothing  more  than  the  original  claimant  possessed.  They  did 
not  and  could  not  purchase  the  good  offices  of  this  Government, 
and  you  are  instructed  not  to  extend  them  in  the  case  of  the 
Cochet  claim.  Your  proposed  course  in  regard  to  the  Landreau 
claim  is  approved;  but  that  claim  must  not,  of  course,  be 
pressed  in  any  manner  that  would  seem  to  embarrass  Peru  in 
the  hour  of  her  great  distress.  Your  previous  instruction  to 
iise  your  good  offices  in  procuring  an  adjudication  of  the  Land 
reau  claim  was  made  in  view  of  the  possible  fact  —  of  which 
there  was  wide  rumor  —  that  numerous  French  and  English 
claims  were  to  be  presented,  in  which  event  I  was  anxious  that 
the  resources  of  Peru  should  not  be  exhausted  in  the  settlement 
of  other  claims  to  the  prejudice  and  detriment  of  one  belonging 
to  an  American  citizen.  You  will  still  be  guided  by  the  spirit 
and  intent  of  that  instruction. 

The  statements  which  you  say  were  made  to  you  by  Mr. 
Jacob  II.  Shipherd  are  very  extraordinary.  It  is  in  the  first 
place  extraordinary  that  he  should  have  written  to  you  at  all, 
for  I  carefully  advised  him  that  ministers  of  the  United  States 


•  THE   WAR  BETWEEN  PERU,  CHILI,  AND  BOLIVIA.    349 

in  Foreign  countries  were  not  permitted  to  extend  their  good 
offices  in  aid  of  any  claim  unless  so  instructed  by  the  Depart 
ment  of  State.  I  repeatedly  told  him  that  any  representations 
on  behalf  of  the  claims  he  was  urging  must  be  made  at  Lima 
by  his  own  agents.  His  writing  you  was  therefore  an  impro 
priety,  and  his  attempting  to  instruct  you  as  to  what  I  had 
written  you  was  as  grotesquely  absurd  'as  the  language  he  attrib 
utes  to  me.  He  simply  makes  the  mistake  common  to  a  cer 
tain  class  of  honest  enthusiasts  who  imagine  that  the  polite  and 
patient  listener  is  the  author  of  their  own  extravagant  fancies. 
I  recognize  several  of  the  singular  propositions  imputed  to  me 
as  having  been  made  by  Mr.  Shipherd  and  not  in  any  sense 
admitted  or  assented  to  by  me.  I  told  him  in  the  three  or  four 
interviews  which  he  sought  with  me  that  I  could  see  no  possible 
ground  on  which  the  United  States  Government  could  lend  its 
good  offices  in  aid  of  the  Cochet  claim.  You  will  therefore  pay 
no  attention  whatever  to  any  thing  Mr.  Shipherd  may  write  you 
in  regard  to  claims  against  the  Government  of  Peru.  You  will, 
indeed,  do  well  to  return  at  once  to  the  writers  any  letters  you 
may  receive  relating  to  private  claims,  unless  you  first  have  the 
matter  regularly  referred  to  you  by  the  Department  of  State. 
Such  reference  will  never  be  made  except  in  cases  where  in  the 
judgment  of  the  Government  there  is  a  denial  of  justice  to  an 
American  citizen.  Legations  of  the  United  States  in  foreign 
countries  must  not  be  converted  into  agencies  for  the  prosecu 
tion  of  private  claims.  The  Department  trusts  to  your  sound 
discretion  and  prudent  action  in  all  matters  of  this  character. 

[The  Credit  Industrie!,  a  fiscal  institution  of  France,  attempted  to  secure  the 
diplomatic  endorsement  of  the  United  States  as  an  agency  to  adjust  the  financial 
relations  of  Chili  and  Peru.  To  this  proposition  the  Department  of  State 
refused  assent.  Rumors  were  in  circulation  that  the  agents  of  the  Credit  Indns- 
triel  were  at  Lima  seeking  the  patronage  of  the  American  Legation.  Other 
rumors  of  the  same  kind  referred  to  the  Peruvian  Company  of  New  York. 
These  rumors  reaching  the  State  Department,  Mr.  Elaine  sent  the  following 
instruction  to  Mr.  Hurlbut:  —  ] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  Nov.  19,  1881. 

SIR,  —  On  the  27th  ultimo  I  sent  you  the  following  tele 
gram  :  "  Influence  of  your  position  must  not  be  used  in  aid  of 
Credit  Industrie!  or  any  other  financial  or  speculating  associa- 


350  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

tion."  On  the  2d  instant  I  received  your  reply  in  these  words : 
"  It  has  not  been  ;  it  will  not  be."  My  reason  for  telegraphing 
you  was  the  continual  circulation  of  rumors  that  the  aid  of  your 
Legation  was  earnestly  desired  to  promote  the  interest  of  the 
"  Credit  Industrie!  of  France,"  an  association  which  is  making 
efforts  to  re-organize  the  finances  of  Peru.  Agents  of  the  Credit 
Industrie!  had  visited  the  Department  of  State  and  ineffectually 
endeavored  to  enlist  the  interest  of  this  Government  in  their 
behalf.  However  trustworthy  the  Credit  Industrie!  may  be,  I 
did  not  consider  it  proper  for  the  Department  to  have  any  thing 
whatever  to  do  with  it.  It  is  a  foreign  corporation,  responsible 
to  French  law,  and  must  seek  its  patronage  and  protection  from 
France.  At  the  same  time  it  is  no  part  of  your  duty  to  inter 
fere  with  its  negotiations  with  the  Peruvian  Government.  If 
it  can  be  made  an  effective  instrumentality  to  aid  that  unhappy 
country  in  its  prostrate  and  helpless  condition  it  would  be  un 
generous  and  unjust  to  obstruct  its  operations.  Your  duty  is 
negative,  and  you  will  have  fully  complied  with  your  instruction 
by  simply  abstaining  from  all  connection  with  the  association. 

I  have  another  word  of  caution  to  give  you.  I  presume  that 
you  will  be  asked  by  the  agents  or  officers  of  the  Peruvian  Com 
pany  of  New  York  to  lend  your  influence  as  United  States  min 
ister  to  promote  its  interests.  It  would,  of  course,  present  to 
you  the  claim  of  an  American  organization  composed  of  repu 
table  citizens  and  entitled  to  your  good  offices  where  they  may, 
with  propriety,  be  extended.  But  you  will  specially  avoid  any 
advocacy  of  the  claims  of  that  or  any  other  company  or  indi 
vidual  in  the  pursuit  of  personal  ends  or  business  enterprises. 
To  a  minister  of  your  experience  I  need  not  point  out  the 
distinction  between  diplomatic  good  offices  and  personal  advo 
cacy.  To  extend  all  proper  protection  to  American  citizens, 
and  to  secure  for  them  in  any  interests  they  may  have,  a 
respectful  hearing  before  the  tribunals  of  the  country  to  which 
you  are  accredited,  and  generally  to  aid  them  with  information 
and  advice,  are  among  the  imperative  and  grateful  duties  of  a 
minister  —  duties  which  increase  his  usefulness  and  add  to  his 
respect,  and  duties  which  I  have  no  doubt  you  will  faithfully 
perform.  To  go  beyond  and  assume  the  tone  of  advocacy,  with 
its  inevitable  inference  of  personal  interest  and  its  possible  sus- 


THE   WAR  BETWEEN  PERU,  CHILI,  AND  BOLIVIA.    351 

picion  of  improper  interest,  will  at  once  impair,  if  it  does  not 
utterly  destroy,  the  acceptability  and  efficiency  of  a  diplomatic 
representative.  I  recite  these  elementary  grounds  at  the 
present  time,  because,  if  I  am  correctly  advised,  all  manner 
of  schemes  are  on  foot  at  Lima  for  the  re-organization  of  the 
disordered  finances  of  Peru,  and  the  interested  parties  are  seek 
ing,  first  of  all,  the  countenance  and  endorsement  of  the  Ameri 
can  legation.  You  will  exercise  the  utmost  care  in  any  step 
you  may  take,  and  if  any  occasion  shall  arise  where  the  inter 
position  of  this  Government  may  aid  in  restoring  the  credit  of 
Peru  you  will  confer  by  telegraph  with  the  Department,  and 
you  will  take  no  important  step  without  full  and  explicit  in 
struction. 

[As  the  contest  between  Peru  and  Chili  grew  more  desperate  in  the  autumn 
of  1881,  Minister  Hurlbut,  riot  having  time  to  wait  for  instructions  where  an 
interchange  of  notes  required  six  weeks  and  sometimes  eight,  acted  upon  his 
own  responsibility  and  took  several  steps  which  the  Department  of  State  was 
compelled  to  dissent  from  and  to  disapprove.  On  the  22d  of  November,  1881, 
Secretary  Elaine  sent  the  following  dispatch  to  Minister  Hurlbut :  — ] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  Nov.  22,  1881. 

SIR,  —  Your  dispatches  to  No.  23,  inclusive,  have  been  re 
ceived,  and  I  learn  with  regret  that  a  construction  has  been 
put  upon  your  language  and  conduct  indicating  a  policy  of 
active  intervention  on  the  part  of  this  Government,  beyond 
the  scope  of  your  instructions.  As  those  instructions  were 
clear  and  explicit,  and  as  this  Department  is  in  the  possession 
of  no  information  which  would  seem  to  require  the  withdrawal 
of  the  confidence  reposed  in  you,  I  must  consider  this  interpre 
tation  of  your  words  and  acts  as  the  result  of  some  strange 
and  perhaps  prejudiced  misconception. 

My  only  material  for  forming  an  opinion  consists  of  your 
memorandum  to  Admiral  Lynch,  your  letter  to  Senor  Garcia, 
the  secretary  of  General  Pi^rola,  and  the  convention  with 
President  Calderon,  ceding  a  naval  station  to  the  United 
States.  I  would  have  preferred  that  you  should  hold  no  com 
munication  with  Admiral  Lynch  on  questions  of  a  diplomatic 
character.  He  was  present  as  a  military  commander  of  Chilian 
forces,  and  you  were  accredited  to  Peru.  Nor  do  I  conceive 


352  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

that  Admiral  Lynch,  as  the  commander  of  the  Chilian  army 
of  occupation,  had  any  right  to  ask  or  receive  formal  assur 
ance  from  you  as  to  the  opinions  of  your  Government.  The 
United  States  was  represented  in  Chili  by  a  properly  accredited 
minister,  and  from  his  own  Government  the  Admiral  could  and 
ought  to  have  received  any  information  which  it  was  important 
for  him  to  have.  It  was  to  be  expected,  and  even  desired,  that 
frank  and  friendly  relations  should  exist  between  you,  but  I 
cannot  consider  such  confidential  communication  as  justifying 
a  formal  appeal  to  your  colleague  in  Chili,  for  the  correction 
or  criticism  of  your  conduct.  If  there  was  any  thing  in  your 
proceedings  in  Peru  to  which  the  Government  of  Chili  could 
properly  take  exception,  a  direct  representation  to  this  Gov 
ernment,  through  the  Chilian  minister  here,  was  due,  both  to 
the  Government  and  to  yourself. 

Having  said  this,  I  must  add  that  the  language  of  the  memo 
randum  was  not  unnaturally  capable  of  misconstruction.  While 
you  said  nothing  that  may  not  fairly  be  considered  as  war 
ranted  by  your  instructions,  you  omitted  to  say  with  equal 
emphasis  some  things  which  your  instructions  supplied,  and 
which  would  perhaps  have  relieved  the  sensitive  apprehensions 
of  the  Chilian  authorities.  For,  while  the  United  States  would 
unquestionably  "  regard  with  disfavor  "  the  imperious  annexa 
tion  of  Peruvian  territory  as  the  right  of  conquest,  you  were 
distinctly  informed  that  this  Government  could  not  refuse  to 
recognize  that  such  annexation  might  become  a  necessary  con 
dition  in  a  final  treaty  of  peace.  The  main  purpose  of  your 
effort  was  expected  to  be,  not  so  much  a  protest  against  any 
possible  annexation,  as  an  attempt  by  friendly  but  unofficial 
communications  with  the  Chilian  authorities  (with  whom  you 
were  daily  associated),  to  induce  them  to  support  the  policy 
of  giving  to  Peru,  without  the  imposition  of  harsh  and  abso 
lute  conditions  precedent,  the  opportunity  to  show  that  the 
rights  and  interests  of  Chili  could  be  satisfied  without  such 
annexation.  There  is  enough  in  your  memorandum,  if  care 
fully  considered,  to  indicate  this  purpose,  arid  I  only  regret 
that  you  did  not  state  it  with  a  distinctness,  and  if  necessary 
with  a  repetition,  which  would  have  made  impossible  any  but 
the  most  willful  misconception. 


THE  WAR  BETWEEN  PERU,   CHILI,   AND  BOLIVIA.     353 

As  at  present  advised  I  must  express  disapproval  of  your 
letter  to  Sefior  Garcia,  the  secretary  of  General  Pierola.  I 
think  that  your  proper  course  in  reference  to  Garcia's  commu 
nication  would  have  been  either  entirely  to  ignore  it  as  claim 
ing  an  official  character  which  you  could  not  recognize,  or,  if 
you  thought  that  courtesy  required  a  reply,  to  state  that  you 
were  accredited  to  the  Calderon  Government,  and  could,  there 
fore,  know  no  other,  and  that  any  communication  which  Gen 
eral  Pierola  thought  it  his  duty  or  interest  to  make,  must  be 
made  directly  to  the  Government  at  Washington.  You  had 
no  responsibility  in  the  matter,  and  it  was  injudicious  to  assume 
any.  The  recognition  of  the  Calderon  Government  had  been 
duly  considered  and  decided  by  your  own  Government,  and 
you  were  neither  instructed  nor  expected  to  furnish  General 
Pierola  or  the  Peruvian  public  with  the  reasons  for  that  action. 
The  following  language  in  your  letter  to  Senor  Garcia  might 
well  be  misunderstood :  — 

"  Chili  desires,  and  asks  for  Tarapacd,  and  will  recognize  the  Government 
which  agrees  to  its  cession.  The  Calderon  Government  will  not  cede  it.  It 
remains  to  be  seen  whether  that  of  Pierola  will  prove  more  pliable." 

It  might  easily  be  supposed,  by  an  excited  public  opinion  on 
either  side,  that  such  language  was  intended  to  imply  that  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  had  recognized  the  Govern 
ment  of  Calderon  because  of  its  resolution  not  to  cede  Peruvian 
territory.  No  such  motive  has  ever  been  declared  by  this 
Government.  The  Government  of  Calderon  was  recognized 
because  we  believed  it  to  be  the  interest  of  both  Chili  and  Peru 
that  some  respectable  authority  should  be  established  which 
could  restore  internal  order,  and  initiate  responsible  negotia 
tions  for  peace.  We  desired  that  the  Peruvian  Government 
should  have  a  fair  opportunity  to  obtain  the  best  terms  it  could, 
and  hoped  that  it  would  be  able  to  satisfy  the  just  demands  of 
Chili  without  the  painful  sacrifice  of  the  national  territory. 
But  we  did  not  make,  and  never  intended  to  make,  any  special 
result  of  the  peace  negotiations  the  basis  of  our  recognition  of 
the  Calderon  Government.  What  was  best,  and  what  was  pos 
sible  for  Peru  to  do,  we  were  anxious  to  the  extent  of  our 
power  to  aid  her  in  doing,  by  the  use  of  whatever  influence  or 


354  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

consideration  we  enjoyed  with  Chili.  Further  than  that,  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  has,  as  yet,  expressed  neither 
opinion  nor  intention. 

I  must  also  express  the  dissatisfaction  of  the  Department 
with  your  telegram  to  the  minister  of  the  United  States  near 
the  Argentine  Confederation,  suggesting  that  a  minister  be  sent 
by  that  Government  to  Peru. 

This  would  have  been  clearly  without  the  sphere  of  your 
proper  official  action  at  any  time,  but  as  there  existed  a  serious 
difference  at  that  time  between  Chili  and  the  Argentine  Con 
federation,  you  might  naturally  have  anticipated  that  such  a 
recommendation  would  be  considered  by  Chili  as  an  effort  to 
effect  a  political  combination  against  her.  The  United  States 
was  not  in  search  of  alliances  to  support  a  hostile  demonstration 
against  Chili,  and  such  an  anxiety  might  well  be  deemed  incon 
sistent  with  the  professions  of  an  impartial  mediation. 

As  to  the  convention  with  regard  to  a  naval  station  in  the 
bay  of  Chimbote,  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  although  it  is  a 
desirable  arrangement  the  time  is  not  opportune.  I  should  be 
very  unwilling  to  ask  such  a  concession  under  circumstances 
which  would  almost  seem  to  impose  upon  Peru  the  necessity  of 
compliance  with  our  request,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  when 
ever  Peru  is  relieved  from  present  embarrassments  she  will 
cheerfully  grant  any  facilities  which  our  naval  or  commercial 
interests  might  require.  Nor  in  the  present  excited  condition 
of  public  opinion  in  Chili  should  I  be  willing  to  afford  to  evil- 
disposed  persons  the  opportunity  to  intimate  that  the  United 
States  contemplated  the  establishment  of  a  naval  rendezvous  in 
the  neighborhood  of  either  Peru  or  Chili.  The  very  natural 
and  innocent  convenience  which  we  require  might  be  misunder 
stood  or  misrepresented,  and  as  our  sole  purpose  is  to  be  allowed, 
in  a  spirit  of  the  most  impartial  friendship,  to  act  as  mediator 
between  these  two  powers,  I  would  prefer  at  present  to  ask  no 
favors  of  the  one  and  to  excite  no  possible  apprehension  in  the. 
other. 

Having  thus  stated  with  frankness  the  impression  made  upon 
the  Department  by  such  information  as  you  have  furnished,  it 
becomes  my  duty  to  add  that  this  Government  is  unable  to 
understand  the  abolition  of  the  Calderon  Government  and  the 


THE  WAR  BETWEEN  PERU,  CHILI,  AND  BOLIVIA.     355 

arrest  of  President  Calderon  himself  by  the  Chilian  authorities, 
or  I  suppose  I  ought  to  say  by  the  Chilian  Government,  as  the 
secretary  for  foreign  affairs  of  that  Government  has  in  a  formal 
communication  to  Mr.  Kilpatrick  declared  that  the  Calderon 
Government  "is  at  an  end."  As  we  recognized  that  Govern 
ment  in  supposed  conformity  with  the  wishes  of  Chili,  and  as 
no  reason  for  its  destruction  has  been  given  to  us,  you  will  still 
consider  yourself  accredited  to  it,  if  any  .legitimate  representa 
tive  exists  in  the  place  of  President  Calderon.  If  none  such 
exists  you  will  remain  in  Lima  until  you  receive  further  in 
structions,  confining  your  communications  with  the  Chilian 
authorities  to  such  limits  as  your  personal  convenience  and  the 
maintenance  of  the  rights  and  privileges  of  your  Legation  may 
require. 

[Without  instructions  from  the  Department  of  State,  Mr.  Hurlbut  entirely 
on  his  own  judgment  and  responsibility  negotiated  with  the  Government  of 
Peru  for  a  Naval  and  Coaling  Station  for  the  United  States.  He  also  enter 
tained  a  proposition  for  the  transfer  of  a  Railroad  Company  of  which  he  was  to 
become  the  Trustee  for  an  American  Company.  On  learning  these  facts,  Mr. 
Blaine  sent  the  following  dispatch  to  Mr.  Hurlbut.] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  Dec.  3, 1881. 

Sin,  —  Since  sending  my  instruction  of  the  22d  ultimo  to 
you,  I  have  more  carefully  examined  the  protocol  transmitted 
in  your  dispatch  of  the  5th  of  October,  signed  by  yourself  on 
behalf  of  the  United  States,  and  Senor  Galvez,  minister  of  for 
eign  affairs,  on  behalf  of  Peru,  for  the  cession  of  a  naval  and 
coaling  station  to  the  United  States  at  Chimbote.  I  find  it  diffi 
cult  to  discover  what  substantial  advantages  would  be  gained 
by  this  Government  in  the  event  of  its  acceptance  of  the  pro 
posed  agreement. 

I  have  already  had  occasion  to  remark  that  the  time  was  not 
opportune  for  any  negotiation  for  a  concession  from  a  Govern 
ment  reduced  to  such'  extremity  as  that  in  which  Peru  stands 
to-day,  and  to  call  your  attention  to  other  grave  considerations 
which  should  outweigh  any  apparent  temptation  to  our  sense  of 
immediate  self-interest  in  asking  or  accepting  the  concession 
of  special  privileges  in  that  country. 

The  advantages  offered  by  this  protocol  grow  more  shadowy 


356  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

as  its  provisions  are  more  closely  examined.  The  first  article  con 
cedes  to  the  United  States  the  right  to  establish  a  coaling-station 
at  Chimbote,  and  the  second  immediately  adds  that  this  shall 
not  be  exclusive ;  that  Peru  reserves  the  right  to  concede  the 
same  facilities  to  any  other  friendly  power  which  may  solicit 
them.  The  third  subjects  to  Peruvian  law  whatever  land  might 
be  acquired  by  the  United  States  for  the  purposes  of  a  coaling- 
station  ;  and  by  the  fourth  article  Peru  has  the  right  to  with 
draw  all  that  is  conceded  by  the  agreement  whenever  she  sees 
fit,  upon  one  year's  notice. 

A  naval  and  coaling  station  on  the  South  Pacific  coast,  care 
fully  chosen  with  the  aid  of  the  professional  knowledge  of  those 
specially  qualified  to  determine  its  capacity  to  answer  the  wants 
of  our  National  ships,  arid  over  which  we  might  exercise  proper 
and  necessary  jurisdiction,  with  a  secure  tenure,  would  be  of 
undoubted  value,  and  this  Government,  at  a  fitting  time,  may 
be  willing  to  negotiate  upon  fair  terms  for  such  a  privilege.  In 
the  protocol  presented  I  observe  that  you  have,  with  perfect 
justice,  offered  no  consideration  to  Peru  for  this  amiable  con 
cession,  which  would  only  enable  us  to  enjoy  011  her  shores  the 
same  privileges  which  we  substantially  possess  to-day,  and 
which  she  is  ready  to  extend  to  every  other  power  with  which 
she  is  not  in  actual  war.  It  has  the  merit  at  least  of  innocent 
diplomacy.  Nothing  was  given  and  nothing  was  taken. 

While  your  negotiation  of  this  protocol  may  be  regarded  as 
an  error  of  judgment,  involving  no  serious  or  lasting  conse 
quences,  I  regret  that  another  proceeding  which  you  report  in 
the  same  dispatch  is  of  a  graver  nature,  and  I  cannot  pass  it  by 
without  the  most  decided  expression  of  disapprobation. 

You  have  commenced  an  extraordinary  negotiation  with 
President  Calderon  in  regard  to  a  Railroad  company  of  which 
you,  while  American  minister,  propose  to  become  the  trustee  or 
intermediary,  the  road  to  be  ultimately  turned  over  to  an 
American  company,  —  an  unfinished  road,  which  you  say  has 
already  cost  nine  millions  of  dollars. 

The  principal  terms  of  the  arrangement  will  be  the  payment 
to  the  Peruvian  Government  of  one  million  dollars  in  money 
and  the  same  in  paid-up  stock  to  clear  off  all  existing  incum- 
brances,  for  which  sums  they  concede  the  right  to  construct 


THE   WAR  BETWEEN  PERU,   CHILI,   AND   BOLIVIA.     357 

and  operate  the  road  for  twenty-five  years  after  it  is  finished. 
You  consider  the  grant  very  valuable  and  the  possibilities  of 
the  company  very  large.  The  special  advantage  which  the 
United  States  may  derive  from  these  possibilities  is  that  the 
price  to  be  charged  for  coal  carried  over  the  road  may  be 
limited,  as  the  railroad  runs  to  Chimbote  and  the  railroad 
arrangement  is  a  sequel  to  and  part  of  the  plan  for  a  coaling- 
station  there. 

I  have  learned  of  this  negotiation  with  profound  astonishment 
and  regret. 

It  is  hardly  conceivable  that  under  any  circumstances  what 
ever  your  Government  would  consent  that  its  minister  should 
accept  such  a  position,  but  for  the  minister  himself,  without 
instruction  and  without  permission,  to  assume  the  charge  of  an 
extensive  financial  scheme  for  the  purchase,  completion,  and 
transfer  of  a  railroad  is  an  utter  disregard  of  every  rule  of  pru 
dence  and  propriety  that  should  govern  the  conduct  of  a  repre 
sentative  of  the  country.  At  a  time  like  the  present,  when  the 
ruin  of  Peruvian  interests  and  the  embarrassment  of  that  Gov 
ernment  in  its  almost  hopeless  attempts  to  contrive  a  method  of 
raising  money  have  given  birth  to  so  many  speculative  schemes, 
and  filled  the  press  with  accounts  of  contending  companies  and 
their  enticing  proposals,  the  direct  participation  of  the  Ameri 
can  minister  in  a  plan  for  the  re-organization  of  a  wrecked  rail 
way  company  cannot  fail  to  lead  to  misapprehensions  on  the 
part  of  other  Governments  and  distrust  of  the  United  States 
and  its  minister,  whose  motives  and  proceedings  would  be 
viewed  in  the  most  unfavorable  light. 

Whether  the  grant  be  valuable  or  the  possibilities  of  the 
railroad  large,  or  the  profit  of  the  speculation  great,  are  ques 
tions  of  little  moment  compared  to  those  higher  considera 
tions  of  national  interest  and  dignity  which  should  govern  every 
act  and  every  word  in  the  intercourse  and  dealings  of  this 
Nation  with  others,  as  conducted  by  a  representative  clothed 
with  its  power  and  charged  with  its  interests  and  its  honor. 
The  construction  of  a  railroad  and  the  cheapening  of  coal  may 
be  laudable  enterprises  in  themselves,  but  this  Government  does 
not  send  its  envoys  abroad  to  undertake  them.  It  is  inconsist 
ent  with  the  first  duty  of  a  diplomatic  agent  to  assume  such 


358  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

functions  ;  and  however  disinterested  or  innocent  might  be  the 
design,  it  would  inevitably  awaken  surmises  prejudicial  to  his 
standing  and  would  impair,  if  not  utterly  destroy,  his  influence 
with  his  colleagues  and  with  the  people  of  the  country  to  which 
he  was  accredited. 

With  some  relief  I  note  that  this  negotiation  was  not  wholly 
completed  at  the  time  of  writing  your  dispatch.  I  presume  it 
was  broken  off  by  the  arrest  of  President  Calderon  ;  but  I 
should  be  better  pleased  to  learn  that  upon  mature  reflection  the 
impropriety  of  engaging  in  such  a  project  and  of  undertaking 
functions  so  incompatible  with  your  representative  character 
had  occurred  to  your  own  mind,  and  that  you  had  abandoned 
it  altogether. 

If,  on  the  contrary,  you  have  actually  endeavored  to  carry  it 
out  by  any  compact  or  convention  with  the  Peruvian  Govern 
ment  you  will  at  once  notify  that  Government  that  the  project 
is  disapproved,  and  will  not  be  ratified ;  and  you  will  abstain 
from  taking  any  further  steps  in  the  name  of  the  United  States 
tending  to  the  acquisition  or  control  of  the  railroad  or  to  the 
interference  in  any  way  whatever  in  that  enterprise  so  long  as 
you  are  the  accredited  representative  of  this  Government. 

[The  following  are  the  original  instructions  delivered  by  Secretary  Elaine  to 
General  Kilpatrick  when  the  latter  was  about  to  sail  on  his  mission  to  Chili.] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  June  15,  1881. 

SIR,  —  The  unfortunate  condition  of  the  relations  between 
Chili  and  Peru  makes  the  mission  upon  the  duties  of  which 
you  are  now  entering  one  of  grave  responsibility  and  great 
delicacy.  Difficult  as  would  be  any  intervention  of  the  United 
States  under  ordinary  circumstances,  our  position  is  further 
embarrassed  by  the  failure  of  the  conference  at  Arica,  under 
taken  at  the  suggestion  of  my  predecessor.  It  is  evident  from 
the  protocols  of  that  conference  that  Chili  was  prepared  to  dic 
tate  and  not  to  discuss  terms  of  peace,  and  that  the  arbitration 
of  the  United  States  upon  any  questions  of  difference  with  the 
allied  powers  of  Peru  and  Bolivia  was  not  acceptable  and  would 
not  be  accepted  by  the  Chilian  Government.  Since  that  time 
the  war  has  closed  in  the  complete  success  of  Chili,  and  in 


THE  WAR  BETWEEN  PERU,  CHILI,  AND  BOLIVIA.       359 

what  can  scarcely  be  considered  less  than  the  conquest  of  Peru 
and  Bolivia. 

This  Government  cannot  therefore  anticipate  that  the  offer 
of  friendly  intervention  in  the  settlement  of  the  serious  ques 
tions  now  pending  would  be  agreeable  to  the  Government  of 
Chili.  It  would  scarcely  comport  with  self-respect  that  such 
an  offer  should  be  refused,  and  it  would  be  of  no  benefit  to 
Peru  and  Bolivia  that  it  should  be  offered  and  declined.  But 
I  am  sure  the  Chilian  Government  will  appreciate  the  natural 
and  deep  interest  which  the  United  States  feels  in  the  termina 
tion  of  a  condition  so  calamitous  in  its  consequences  to  the 
best  interests  of  all  the  South  American  republics.  It  should 
also  know  that  if  at  any  time  the  interposition  of  the  good 
offices  of  this  Government  can  contribute  to  the  restoration 
of  friendly  relations  between  the  belligerent  powers,  they  will, 
upon  proper  intimation,  be  promptly  offered. 

While,  therefore,  no  instructions  are  given  you  to  tender 
officially  any  advice  to  the  Government  of  Chili  which  is  un 
sought,  you  will,  on  such  opportunity  as  may  occur,  govern 
your  conduct  and  representations  by  the  considerations  to 
which  I  now  call  your  attention. 

Without  entering  upon  any  discussion  as  to  the  causes  of  the 
late  war  between  Chili  on  the  one  side  and  Peru  and  Bolivia 
on  the  other,  this  Government  recognizes  the  right  which  the 
successful  conduct  of  that  war  has  conferred  upon  Chili ;  and, 
in  doing  so,  I  will  not  undertake  to  estimate  the  extent  to 
which  the  Chilian  Government  has  the  right  to  carry  its  calcu 
lation  of  the  indemnities  to  which  it  is  entitled,  nor  the 
security  for  the  future  which  its  interests  may  seem  to  require. 
But  if  the  Chilian  Government,  as  its  representatives  have 
declared,  seeks  only  a  guarantee  of  future  peace,  it  would 
seem  natural  that  Peru  and  Bolivia  should  be  allowed  to  offer 
such  indemnity  and  guarantee  before  the  annexation  of  terri 
tory,  which  is  the  right  of  conquest,  is  insisted  upon.  If  these 
powers  fail  to  offer  what  is  a  reasonably  sufficient  indemnity 
and  guarantee,  then  it  becomes  a  fair  subject  of  consideration 
whether  such  territory  may  not  be  exacted  as  the  necessary 
price  of  peace. 

But  at  the  conclusion  of  a  war  avowedly  not  of  conquest, 


360  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

but  for  the  solution  of  differences  which  diplomacy  had  failed 
to  settle,  to  make  the  acquisition  of  territory  a  sine  qua  non  of 
peace  is  calculated  to  cast  suspicions  on  the  professions  with 
which  war  was  originally  declared.  It  may  very  well  be  that 
at  the  termination  of  such  a  contest  the  changed  condition  and 
relation  of  all  the  parties  to  it  may  make  re-adjustment  of 
boundaries  or  territorial  changes  wise  as  well  as  necessary.  But 
this,  where  the  war  is  not  one  of  conquest,  should  be  the  result 
of  negotiation  and  not  the  absolute  preliminary  condition  on 
which  alone  the  victor  consents  to  negotiate.  At  this  day, 
when  the  right  of  the  people  to  govern  themselves,  the  funda 
mental  basis  of  republican  institutions,  is  so  widely  recognized, 
nothing  is  more  difficult  or  more  dangerous  than  the  forced 
transfer  of  territory,  carrying  with  it  an  indignant  and  hostile 
population ;  and  nothing  but  a  necessity  proven  before  the 
world  can  justify  it.  It  is  not  a  case  in  which  the  Power 
desiring  the  territory  can  be  accepted  as  a  safe  or  impartial 
judge. 

While  the  United  States  Government  does  not  pretend  to 
express  an  opinion  whether  or  not  such  an  annexation  of  terri 
tory  is  a  necessary  consequence  of  this  war,  it  believes  that  it 
would  be  more  honorable  to  the  Chilian  Government,  more  con 
ducive  to  the  security  of  a  permanent  peace,  and  more  in  con 
sonance  with  those  principles  which  are  professed  by  all  the 
republics  of  America,  that  such  territorial  changes  should  be 
avoided  as  far  as  possible ;  that  they  should  never  be  the  result 
of  mere  force,  but,  if  necessary,  should  be  decided  and  tempered 
by  full  and  equal  discussion  between  all  the  Powers  whose 
people  and  whose  national  interests  are  involved. 

At  the  present  moment,  the  completeness  of  the  victory  of 
Chili  seems  to  render  such  a  diplomatic  discussion  impossible. 
The  result  of  the  conflict  has  been  not  only  the  defeat  of  the 
allied  armies,  but  the  dissolution  of  all  responsible  government 
in  Peru.  Its  soil  is  occupied,  the  collection  of  its  revenues 
is  transferred  to  the  conquerors,  its  executive,  legislative,  and 
judicial  functions  are  in  abeyance.  It  can  neither  enforce  order 
within  nor  assure  peace  without. 

An  effort,  ^nd  apparently  a  very  earnest  and  honest  one,  has 
been  made  to  create  a  Provisional  government,  which  shall 


THE   WAR  BETWEEN  PERU,  CHILT,   AND  BOLIVIA.     361 

gradually  restore  order  and  the  reign  of  law.  But  it  is  obvious 
that  for  such  a  government  to  succeed  in  obtaining  the  con 
fidence  either  of  its  own  people  or  foreign  Powers,  it  must  be 
allowed  a  freedom  and  force  of  action  which  cannot  be  exercised 
while  Chili  holds  absolute  possession  and  governs  by  military 
authority.  This  Government,  therefore,  has  been  glad  to  learn 
from  its  minister  in  Chili,  whom  you  succeed,  that  the  Chilian 
authorities  have  decided  to  give  their  support  to  the  efforts  of 
Senor  Calderon  to  establish  on  a  steady  footing  a  Provisional 
government  in  Peru. 

You  will,  as  far  as  you  can  do  so  with  propriety  and  without 
officious  intrusion,  approve  and  encourage  this  disposition  on 
the  part  of  the  Chilian  Government,  and  this  Department  will 
be  exceedingly- gratified  if  your  influence  as  the  representative 
of  the  United  States  shall  be  instrumental  in  inducing  the  Gov 
ernment  of  Chili  to  give  its  aid  and  support  to  the  restoration 
of  regular,  constitutional  government  in  Peru,  and  to  postpone 
the  final  settlement  of  all  questions  of  territorial  annexation  to 
the  diplomatic  negotiations  which  can  then  be  resumed  with  the 
certainty  of  a  just,  friendly,  and  satisfactory  conclusion. 

In  any  representation  which  you  may  make,  you  will  say  that 
the  hope  of  the  United  States  is  that  the  negotiations  for  peace 
will  be  conducted,  and  the  final  settlement  between  the  two 
countries  determined,  without  invoking  on  either  side,  the  aid 
or  intervention  of  any  European  Power. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  seeks  only  to  perform 
the  part  of  a  friend  to  all  the  South-American  republics  engaged 
in  this  unhappy  conflict,  and  it  will  regret  to  be  compelled  to 
consider  how  far  that  feeling  might  be  affected,  and  a  more 
active  interposition  forced  upon  it,  by  any  attempted  complica 
tion  of  this  question  with  European  politics. 

If  at  any  time  you  shall  judge  it  expedient  and  advantageous 
to  read  this  dispatch  to  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  you  are 
authorized  to  do  so.  The  decision  on  this  point  is  left  to  your 
discretion. 


362  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPOXDEXCE. 

[Mr.  Kilpatrick  had  pursued  a  course  at  Santiago,  which  in  the  judgment  of 
the  State  Department  had  created  erroneous  and  hurtful  impressions  with  the 
Government  of  Chili  touching  the  intentions  of  the  United  States.  Mr.  Elaine 
addressed  him  the  following  dispatch  to  that  effect: — ] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  Nov.  22,  1881. 

SIR, —  Your  dispatch  of  Oct.  14,  with  a  copy  of  your  reply 
to  Sefior  Balmaseda,  has  been  received.  The  communication 
to  which  it  was  a  reply  should  have  accompanied  it,  in  order 
that  the  Department  could  properly  judge  of  your  answer. 
Your  letter  is  not  approved  by  the  Department.  You  had 
made  known  to  the  Government  of  Chili  the  scope  of  your 
instructions,  and  had  given  abundant  assurance  of  the  friendly 
feeling  of  your  own  Government. 

If  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Hurlbut  in  Peru  had  given  sufficient 
ground  of  complaint  to  the  Chilian  Government,  that  complaint 
should  have  been  made  in  Washington.  Mr.  Hurlbut's  pres 
entation  speech  to  President  Calderon,  his  memorandum  to 
Admiral  Lynch,  his  letter  to  Garcia,  and  telegraphic  reports 
from  Buenos  Ayres,  were  not  subjects  upon  which  you  were 
called  to  pass  judgment,  nor  upon  which  you  should  have  been 
interrogated  by  the  Chilian  Government.  Nothing  in  your 
conduct  or  language  had  excited  its  apprehensions,  and  no 
explanation  was  due  or  could  have  been  expected  from  you,  of 
the  language  or  conduct  of  your  colleague  in  Peru.  I  should 
have  been  glad  if  it  had  occurred  to  you  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  secretary  for  foreign  affairs  to  the  impropriety  of  such  a 
communication,  and,  in  referring  to  the  fact,  that  your  instruc 
tions,  gave  all  the  assurance  which  he  could  either  desire  or 
ask,  of  the  friendly  disposition  of  the  United  States,  I  should 
have  much  preferred  that  you  had  furnished  him  with  a  copy 
of  those  instructions  instead  of  submitting  a  paraphrase  which 
does  not  fully  represent  their  spirit  and  meaning. 

Indeed,  I  find  it  difficult  to  understand  how  the  Chilian  Gov 
ernment  could  have  been  under  any  misapprehension  as  to  the 
disposition  or  purpose  of  the  United  States,  when  the  instruc 
tions  both  to  yourself  and  to  Mr.  Hurlbut  had  been  already 
frankly  communicated.  It  is  still  more  difficult  to  understand 
the  abolition  of  the  Calderon  Government  and  the  arrest  of 


THE  WAR  BETWEEN  PERU,   CHILI,   AND  BOLIVIA.     363 

the  President  himself,  in  the  face  of  the  assurance  addressed 
to  you  by  Sefior  Valderrama :  viz.,  — 

"You  are  therefore  authorized  to  say  to  your  Government  that  every 
effort  would  be  given  by  Chili  to  strengthen  the  Government  of  President 
Calderon,  giving  to  it  the  most  perfect  freedom  of  action,  considering  the 
Chilian  occupation.  That  no  question  of  territorial  annexation  would  be 
touched  until  a  constitutional  government  could  be  established  in  Peru, 
acknowledged  and  respected  by  the  people,  with  full  powers  to  enter  into 
diplomatic  negotiations  for  peace." 


The  President  has  learned  with  great  regret  of  the  arrest 
and  removal  of  President  Calderon,  but  in  the  present  state  of 
his  information  will  not  undertake  to  appreciate  its  significance. 
He  hopes  that  when  the  facts  are  better  known,  he  will  be 
relieved  from  the  painful  impression  that  it  was  intended  as  a 
rebuke  to  the  friendly  disposition  of  the  United  States.  The 
present  condition  of  affairs,  the  difficulty  of  prompt  communi 
cation  with  the  legations  of  Peru  and  Chili,  and  the  unfortu 
nate  notoriety  of  the  differences  between  yourself  and  your 
colleague  in  Peru,  have,  in  the  judgment  of  the  President,  ren 
dered  a  special  mission  necessary.  You  will  inform  the  Chilian 
Government  that  a  special  envoy  will  be  immediately  sent,  and 
you  will  assure  that  Government  that  he  will  come  in  the  spirit 
of  impartial  friendship,  anxious  to  learn  that  recent  occurrences 
have  not  been  intended  to  disturb  the  long-continued  and 
friendly  relations  existing  between  us ;  and  instructed  by  the 
President  to  lay  before  the  Chilian  Government  frankly,  but 
with  a  scrupulous  consideration  for  the  rights  and  interests  of 
that  Government,  the  views  which  he  holds  upon  the  deplor 
able  condition  of  affairs  in  South  America,  a  condition  now  fast 
assuming  proportions  which  make  its  settlement  a  matter  of 
deep  concern  to  all  the  republics  of  the  continent.  The  Presi 
dent  anticipates  that  this  step,  suggested  by  friendly  interest 
and  justified  by  our  existing  relations,  will  be  properly  appre 
ciated  by  the  Chilian  Government ;  and  he  sincerely  hopes 
that  no  action  of  that  Government  will  tend  further  to  compli 
cate  existing  difficulties  before  the  arrival  of  the  minister.1 

1  Similar  notice  of  the  Special  Mission  was  sent  to  Mr.  Hurlbut  at  Lima. 


3G4  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 


SPECIAL    MISSION    TO    CHILI,   PERU,   AND 
BOLIVIA. 


[The  confusion  resulting  in  Peru  and  Chili  as  described  in  dispatches  to  Mr. 
Hurlbut  and  Mr.  Kilpatrick  (pages  343-363)  induced  the  President  to  dispatch 
a  special  envoy  accredited  to  the  three  countries,  not  to  supersede  the  ministers 
already  there  in  the  ordinary  business  of  their  Legations,  but  to  assume  control 
of  the  negotiations  pending  between  the  United  States  and  the  belligerent  coun 
tries  on  the  subject  of  their  hostilities.  Honorable  William  H.  Trescott,  for 
merly  Assistant  Secretary  of  State  under  General  Cass,  and  special  envoy  to 
China  with  Hon.  James  F.  Swift  in  1879-80,  was  selected  for  the  mission.  He 
was  accompanied  by  Mr.  Walker  Blaine,  who  was  holding  the  post  of  Third 
Assistant  Secretary  of  State  at  the  time.  The  following  are  the  instructions 
which  Mr.  Blaine,  Secretary  of  State,  gave  to  Mr.  Trescott: — ] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  Dec.  1,  1881. 

SIR,  —  While  the  circumstances  under  which  the  President 
has  deemed  it  proper  to  charge  you  with  a  special  mission  to 
the  Republics  of  Chili,  Peru,  and  Bolivia,  render  it  necessary 
that  much  shall  be  confided  to  your  own  discretion,  it  is 
desirable  that  you  should  be  placed  in  full  possession  of  his 
views  as  to  the  general  line  of  conduct  which  you  will  be 
expected  to  pursue. 

For  this  purpose  it  is  not  necessary  at  present  to  go  farther 
back  in  the  history  of  the  unfortunate  relations  between  Chili 
on  the  one  hand  and  Peru  and  Bolivia  on  the  other,  than  the 
time  when  the  defeat  of  General  Pierola,  his  abandonment  of 
the  capital  and  the  coast,  and  their  occupation  by  the  Chilian 
army,  seemed  to  have  put  an  end  to  all  responsible  native  gov 
ernment  in  Peru.  Lima  having  been  surrendered  on  the  19th 
January,  1881,  Pierola  driven  across  the  mountains,  the  Chilian 
military  occupation  consolidated ;  and  the  Chilian  Government 
refusing  to  recognize  Pierola  as  representing  the  Government  of 
Peru,  it  became  absolutely  necessary  that  some  Government 


SPECIAL  MISSION  TO   CHILI,  PERU,  AND  BOLIVIA.     365 

should  be  established,   if  Peru   were    not  to   remain   simply  a 
military  district  of  Chili. 

On  February  25,  1881,  Mr.  Christiancy,  the  United  States 
minister  at  Lima,  wrote  this  Department  as  follows :  — 

"  A  movement  has,  therefore,  been  initiated  among  some  of  the  leading 
citi/ens  of  Lima  and  Callao,  and  encouraged  by  the  Chilian  authorities,  to  es 
tablish  a  new  Government  in  opposition  to  that  of  Pierola  [who  is  still  at 
Tacna  or  Yareja]." 

From  this  date  to  April  13,  1881,  Mr.  Christiancy  kept  the 
Department  informed  of  the  probabilities  of  the  establishment 
of  the  Calderon  Government,  so  called  from  the  name  of  the 
eminent  Peruvian  statesman  who  had  been  chosen  President. 
On  that  date  he  wrote  :  — 

"In  my  own  private  opinion,  however,  if  the  provisional  government  had 
come  up  without  any  appearance  of  support  from  the  Chilian  authorities,  it 
would  have  had  many  elements  of  popularity  and  would  probably  have  suc 
ceeded  in  obtaining  the  acquiescence  of  the  people.  This  new  Government 
realizes  the  importance  of  an  early  peace  with  Chili,  the  necessity  of  which 
must  be  recognized  by  every  thoughtful  man;  while  that  of  Pierola  professes 
to  intend  to  carry  on  the  war;  but  it  has  no  means  for  the  purpose  at  pres 
ent,  and  my  own  opinion  is  that  any  effort  to  do  so  will  end  in  still  greater 
calamities  to  Peru." 

On  May  23,  the  same  minister,  in  a  postscript  to  his  dispatch 
of  the  17th,  says  :  — 

"  Since  writing  the  above  it  has  become  still  more  probable  that  the  threat 
of  'indefinite  occupation'  was  intended  only  to  drive  the  Peruvians  into  the 
support  of  the  provisional  government,  as  two  days  ago  they  allowed  the 
Government  to  send  seventy-five  soldiers  to  Tacna,  Oroyo,  etc.,  to  control 
that  part  of  the  country,  so  as  to  allow  the  members  of  Congress  to  come  to 
Lima;  and  it  now  begins  to  look  as  if  Calderon  might  secure  a  quorum  (two- 
thirds)  of  the  Congress.  If  he  does  succeed,  it  will  be  some  evidence  that 
Peru  acquiesces  in  that  Government.  And  if  he  gets  the  two-thirds  of  the 
members,  I  think  I  shall  recognize  the  provisional  government,  or  that  of 
the  Congress  and  the  President  they  may  elect,  unless  in  the  mean  time  I 
shall  receive  other  instructions." 

On  the  9th  of  May,  1881,  instructions  had  been  sent  to  him 
from  this  Department,  which  crossed  this  dispatch,  in  which  he 
was  told :  — 

"  If  the  Calderon  Government  is  supported  by  the  character  and  intelli 
gence  of  Peru,  and  is  really  endeavoring  to  restore  constitutional  govern 
ment  with  a  view  both  to  order  within  and  negotiation  with  Chili  for  peace, 
you  may  recognize  it  as  the  existing  provisional  government,  and  render 
what  aid  you  can  by  advice  and  good  offices  to  that  end." 


366  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

Acting  under  these  instructions,  although  with  some  ex 
pressed  doubt  as  to  the  probable  permanence  of  its  existence, 
Mr.  Christiancy,  on  the  26th  of  June,  1881,  formally  recognized 
the  Calderon  Government.  It  is  clear  that  this  recognition  was 
not  an  unfriendly  intervention  as  far  as  the  wishes  and  interests 
of  Chili  were  concerned,  for  under  date  of  May  7,  1881,  two 
days  before  these  instructions  of  the  9th  were  sent  to  Mr. 
Christiancy,  Mr.  Osborn,  the  United  States  minister  to  Chili, 
wrote  from  Santiago  as  follows  :  — 

"  In  my  dispatch  of  April  5,  regarding  the  war  in  this  section,  I  men 
tioned  the  fact  that  the  minister  of  war,  Mr.  Vergara,  who  had  been  with 
the  army  at  Lima,  had  been  sent  for,  and  was  then  on  his  way  to  Chili. 
Since  his  arrival  the  Government  has  labored  to  reach  a  conclusion  touching 
the  course  to  be  pursued  with  Peru,  and  to  that  end  numerous  and  extended 
discussions  among  the  ministers  and  prominent  citizens  of  the  republic,  who 
had  been  invited  to  participate,  have  taken  place.  Three  plans  or  proposi 
tions  were  discussed  :  First,  that  spoken  of  by  me  in  my  No.  201,  involving 
the  withdrawal  of  the  army  to  Arica;  second,  the  occupation  of  the  entire 
Peruvian  coast  by  the  Chilian  forces,  and  its  government  by  Chilian  author 
ities  ;  and  third,  the  strengthening  of  the  Government  of  Calderon,  and  the 
negotiation  of  a  peace  therewith.  The  propriety  of  entering  into  negotia 
tions  with  Pierola  was  not  even  dignified  with  a  consideration.  After  much 
labor  the  Government  reached  the  conclusion  that  the  last  proposition 
afforded  the  easiest  way  out  of  their  complications,  and  it  has  been  deter 
mined  to  send  Mr.  Godoy  to  Peru,  in  charge  of  the  negotiations.  .  .  .  The 
ministry  has  freely  counseled  with  me  regarding  the  difficulties  of  the  situa 
tion,  and  in  view  of  their  previous  determination  to  have  nothing  to  do  with 
Pierola,  I  cannot  but  applaud  the  result  of  their  deliberations.  To  vacate 
the  country  now  would  be  to  turn  it  over  to  anarchy,  and  to  attempt  to 
occupy  the  entire  coast  would,  in  time,  involve  both  countries  in  ruin.  The 
most  feasible  way  to  peace  is,  in  my  opinion,  the  one  resolved  upon.  In 
fact  it  is  the  only  one  which  offers  any  reasonable  hope  of  a  solution  of  the 
difficulties  during  the  present  generation." 

In  giving  the  support  of  recognition  to  the  Calderon  Govern 
ment,  therefore,  so  far  was  this  Government  from  doing  what 
could  be  considered  an  unfriendly  act  to  Chili,  that  it  was,  in 
fact,  giving  its  aid  to  the  very  policy  which  Chili  avowed,  and 
which,  in  the  opinion  of  competent  judges,  was  the  only  method 
of  reasonable  solution. 

This  conclusion  of  the  Government  was  confirmed  by  the 
information  which  was  transmitted  to  the  Department  by  Gen 
eral  Kilpatrick,  who  succeeded  Mr.  Osborn  'as  the  United 
States  Minister  to  Chili.  General  Kilpatrick  was  appointed 
after  the  recognition  of  the  Calderon  Government,  and  was 
furnished  with  instructions  to  which  I  have  already  referred. 


SPECIAL  MISSION  TO   CHILI,  PERU,   AXD  BOLIVIA.      367 

In  his  dispatch,  under  date  August  15,  1881,  he  says :  — 

"I  have  the  honor  to  report  that,  so  far  as  the  assurance  of  public  men 
can  be  relied  upon,  your  instructions  have  been  complied  with  ;  your  ideas 
of  final  peace  accepted,  not  only  by  the  present  administration  at  Santiago, 
but  still  better  of  Sefior  Santa  Maria,  the  President  elect,  whose  administra 
tion  will  have  begun  when  you  receive  this  note." 

General  Kilpatrick  then  proceeds  to  give  a  detailed  account 
of  a  long  interview  with  the  leading  and  most  influential 
members  of  the  Chilian  Government,  in  which  he  quotes  the 
following  as  the  final  assurances  given  to  him  by  the  Chilian 
Secretary  of  State  :  — 

"You  may  therefore  say  to  your  Government  that  every  effort  would  be 
given  by  Chili  to  strengthen  the  Government  of  President  Calderon,  giving 
to  it  the  most  perfect  freedom  of  action,  considering  the  Chilian  occupation ; 
that  no  question  of  Chilian  annexation  would  be  touched  until  a  constitu 
tional  government  could  be  established  in  Peru,  acknowledged  and  respected 
by  the  people,  with  full  powers  to  enter  into  diplomatic  negotiation  for  peace  ; 
that  no  territory  would  be  exacted  unless  Chili  failed  to  secure  ample  and 
just  indemnification  in  other  and  satisfactory  ways,  as  also  ample  security 
for  the  future ;  and  that  in  no  case  would  Chili  exact  territory  save  where 
Chilian  enterprise  and  Chilian  capital  had  developed  the  desert  and  where 
to-day  nine-tenths  of  the  people  were  Chilian." 

But  after  this  recognition,  made  in  entire  good  faith  to  both 
parties,  three  things  followed  :  — 

1.  The  presence    of  a  United  States   minister  at   Lima   ac 
credited  to   the   Calderon   Government,   and  the   reception   in 
Washington    of    a   minister   from    that    Government,  gave    it, 
unquestionably,  increased  strength  and  confidence. 

2.  The  adherents  of  Pierola,  realizing  the  necessity  of  peace 
and  the  existence  of  a  stable  Government  to  negotiate  it,  gradu 
ally  abandoned   the  forlorn  hope  of  continued  resistance,  and 
gave  their  adhesion  to  the  Calderon  Government. 

3.  The  Congress  which  assembled  within  the  neutral  zone  set 
apart  for  that  purpose  by  the  Chilian  authorities,  and  which  was 
further  allowed  by  the  Chilian  Government  to  provide  for  the 
military  impositions  by  the  use  of  the  national  credit,  and  was 
thus  recognized  as  the  representative  of  the  Peruvian  people, 
authorized  President  Calderon  to  negotiate  a  peace,  but  upon 
the  condition  that  no  territory  should  be  ceded. 

As  soon  as  these  facts  indicated  the  possibility  of  a  real  and 
independent  vitality  in  the  Constitution  of  the  Calderon  Gov- 


368  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

eminent  the  Chilian  military  authorities  issued  an  order  for 
bidding  any  exercise  of  its  functions  within  the  territory 
occupied  by  the  Chilian  army  —  that  is,  within  the  entire  terri 
tory  west  of  the  mountains,  including  the  capital  and  ports  of 
Peru. 

Unable  to  understand  this  sudden  and,  giving  due  regard  to 
the  professions  of  Chili,  this  unaccountable  change  of  policy, 
this  Government  instructed  its  minister  at  Lima  to  continue 
to  recognize  the  Calderon  Government  until  more  complete  in 
formation  would  enable  it  to  send  further  instructions.  If  our 
present  information  is  correct,  immediately  upon  the  receipt  of 
this  communication  they  arrested  President  Calderon,  and  thus, 
as  far  as  was  in  their  power,  extinguished  his  Government. 
The  President  does  not  now  insist  upon  the  inference  which 
this  action  would  warrant.  He  hopes  that  there  is  some  ex 
planation  which  will  relieve  him  from  the  painful  impression 
that  it  was  taken  in  resentful  reply  to  the  continued  recognition 
of  the  Calderon  Government  by  the  United  States.  If,  unfor 
tunately,  he  should  be  mistaken,  and  this  motive  be  avowed, 
your  duty  will  be  a  brief  one.  You  will  say  to  the  Chilian 
Government  that  the  President  considers  such  a  proceeding  as 
an  intentional  and  unwarranted  offense,  and  that  you  will  com 
municate  such  an  avowal  to  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  with  the  assurance  that  it  will  be  regarded  by  the  Gov 
ernment  as  an  act  of  such  unfriendly  import  as  to  require  the 
immediate  suspension  of  all  diplomatic  intercourse.  You  will 
inform  me  immediately  of  such  a  contingency  and  instructions 
will  be  sent  you. 

But  I  do  not  anticipate  such  an  occurrence.  From  the  infor 
mation  before  the  Department,  of  which  you  are  possessed,  it  is 
more  probable  that  this  course  will  be  explained  by  an  allega 
tion  that  the  conduct  and  language  of  the  United  States  minis 
ter  in  Peru  had  encouraged  the  Calderon  Government  to  such 
resistance  of  the  wishes  of  Chili  as  to  render  the  negotiation  of 
a  satisfactory  treaty  of  peace  with  the  Calderon  Government 
impossible.  Any  explanation  which  relieves  this  action  by  the 
Chilian  Government  of  the  character  of  an  intentional  offense 
will  be  received  by  you  to  that  extent,  provided  it  does  not 
require  as.  a  condition  precedent  the  disavowal  of  Mr.  Hurlbut. 


SPECIAL  MISSION  TO  CHILI,  PERU,  AND  BOLIVIA.     369 

Whatever  may  be  my  opinion  as  to  the  discretion  of  all  that 
may  have  been  said  or  done  by  Mr.  Hurlbut,  it  is  impossible  for 
me  to  recognize  the  right  of  the  Chilian  Government  to  take 
such  action  without  submitting  to  the  consideration  of  this 
Government  any  cause  of  complaint  against  the  proceedings 
of  the  representative  of  the  United  States.  The  Chilian  Gov 
ernment  was  in  possession  of  the  instructions  sent  to  our  min 
ister  at  the  capital  of  Peru,  as  well  as  those  to  his  colleague 
at  Santiago.  There  was  no  pretense  that  the  conduct  of  Gen 
eral  Kilpatrick  was  any  thing  but  friendly.  Chili  was  repre 
sented  here  by  a  minister  who  enjoyed  the  confidence  of  his 
Government,  and  nothing  can  justify  the  assumption  that  the 
United  States  was  acting  a  double  part  in  its  relations  to  the 
two  countries.  If  the  conduct  of  the  United  States  minis 
ter  seemed  inconsistent  with  what  Chili  had  every  reason  to 
know  was  the  friendly  intention  of  the  United  States,  a  cour 
teous  representation  through  the  Chilian  minister  here  would 
have  enabled  this  Government  promptly  to  correct  or  confirm 
him.  You  are  not  therefore  authorized  to  make  to  the  Chilian 
Government  any  explanation  of  the  conduct  of  General  Hurlbut, 
if  that  Government,  not  having  afforded  us  the  opportunity 
of  accepting  or  disavowing  his  conduct,  insists  upon  making  its 
Interpretation  of  his  proceedings  the  justification  of  its  recent 
action. 

It  is  hoped,  however,  that  you  will  be  able,  by  communica 
tion  at  once  firm  and  temperate,  to  avoid  these  embarrassments. 
If  you  should  fortunately  reach  the  point  where  frank,  mutual 
explanation  can  be  made  without  the  sacrifice  of  that  respect 
which  every  Government  owes  to  itself,  you  will  then  be  at 
liberty,  conforming  your  explanation  to  the  recent  instruction 
to  Mr.  Hurlbut,  with  a  copy  of  which  you  are  furnished,  to 
show  to  the  Government  of  Chili  how  much  both  his  words  and 
acts  have  been  misconceived. 

It  is  difficult  for  me  to  say  how  far  an  explanation  would 
be  satisfactory  to  the  President  which  was  not  accompanied  by 
the  restoration  or  recognition  of  the  Calderon  Government. 
The  objects  which  he  has  at  heart  are,  first,  to  prevent  the 
misery,  confusion,  and  bloodshed  which  the  present  relations 
between  Chili  and  Peru  seem  only  too  certain  to  renew;  and, 


370  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

second,  to  take  care  that  in  any  friendly  attempt  to  reach  this 
desirable  end  the  Government  of  the  United  States  is  treated 
with  the  respectful  consideration  to  which  its  disinterested  pur 
pose,  its  legitimate  influence,  and  its  established  position  entitle 
it.  The  President  feels  in  this  matter  neither  irritation  nor 
resentment.  He  regrets  that  Chili  seems  to  have  misconceived 
both  the  spirit  and  intention  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  and  he  thinks  her  course  has  been  inconsiderate.  He 
will  gladly  learn  that  a  calmer  and  wiser  judgment  directs 
her  counsels,  and  asks  in  no  exacting  spirit  the  correction  of 
what  were  perhaps  natural  misunderstandings.  He  would  be 
satisfied  with  the  manifestation  of  a  sincere  purpose  on  the  part 
of  Chili  to  aid  Peru,  either  in  restoring  the  present  provisional 
government  or  establishing  in  its  place  one  which  will  be  allowed 
the  freedom  of  action  necessary  to  insure  internal  order  and  to 
conduct  a  real  negotiation  to  some  substantial  result. 

Should  the  Chilian  Government,  while  disclaiming  any  inten 
tion  of  offense,  maintain  its  right  to  settle  its  difficulties  with 
Peru  without  the  friendly  intervention  of  other  Powers,  and 
refuse  to  allow  the  formation  of  any  Government  in  Peru  which 
does  not  pledge  its  consent  to  the  cession  of  Peruvian  territory, 
it  will  be  your  duty,  in  language  as  strong  as  is  consistent  with 
the  respect  due  to  an  independent  Power,  to  express  the  disap 
pointment  and  dissatisfaction  felt  by  the  United  States  at  such 
a  deplorable  policy. 

You  will  say  that  this  Government  recognizes  without  reserve 
the  right  of  Chili  to  adequate  indemnity  for  the  cost  of  the  war, 
and  a  sufficient  guarantee  that  it  will  not  again  be  subjected  to 
hostile  demonstration  from  Peru ;  and  further,  that  if  Peru  is 
unable  or  unwilling  to  furnish  such  indemnity,  the  right  of  con 
quest  has  put  it  in  the  power  of  Chili  to  supply  it,  and  the 
reasonable  exercise  of  that  right,  however  much  its  necessity 
may  be  regretted,  is  not  ground  of  legitimate  complaint  on  the 
part  of  other  Powers.  But  this  Government  feels  that  the  ex 
ercise  of  the  right  of  absolute  conquest  is  dangerous  to  the  best 
interests  of  all  the  Republics  of  this  continent ;  that  from  it  are 
certain  to  spring  other  wars  and  political  disturbances ;  and  that 
it  imposes,  even  upon  the  conqueror,  burdens  which  are  scarcely 
compensated  by  the  apparent  increase  of  strength  which  it 


SPECIAL  MISSION  TO   CHILI,  PERU,  AND  BOLIVIA.     371 

gives.  This  Government  also  holds  that  between  two  inde 
pendent  nations,  the  mere  existence  of  war  does  not  confer  the 
right  of  conquest  until  the  failure  to  furnish  the  indemnity  and 
guarantee  which  can  be  rightfully  demanded. 

The  United  States  maintains,  therefore,  that  Peru  has  the 
right  to  demand  that  an  opportunity  should  be  allowed  her  to 
find  such  indemnity  and  guarantee.  Nor  can  this  Government 
admit  that  a  cession  of  territory  can  be  properly  exacted  far  ex 
ceeding  in  value  the  amplest  estimate  of  a  reasonable  indemnity. 

Already,  by  force  of  its  occupation,  the  Chilian  Government 
has  collected  large  sums  from  Peru ;  and  it  has  been  openly 
and  officially  asserted  in  the  Chilian  Congress  that  these  mili 
tary  impositions  have  furnished  a  surplus  beyond  the  cost  of 
maintaining  its  armies  in  that  occupation.  The  annexation  of 
Tarapaca,  which,  under  proper  administration,  would  produce 
annually  a  sum  sufficient  to  pay  a  large  indemnity,  seems  not 
to  be  consistent  with  the  execution  of  justice. 

The  practical  prohibition  of  the  formation  of  a  stable  govern 
ment  in  Peru,  and  the  absolute  appropriation  of  its  most  valu 
able  territory,  is  simply  the  extinction  of  a  State  which  has 
formed  part  of  the  system  of  Republics  on  this  continent, 
honorable  in  the  traditions  and  illustrations  of  its  past  history, 
and  rich  in  resources  for  future  progress.  The  United  States, 
with  which  Peru  has  for  many  years  maintained  the  most  cor 
dial  relations,  has  the  right  to  feel  and  to  express  a  deep  interest 
in  her  distressed  condition  ;  and  while,  cherishing  equal  friend 
liness  to  Chili,  we  will  not  interpose  to  deprive  her  of  the  fair 
advantages  of  military  success,  nor  put  any  obstacle  to  the 
attainment  of  future  security,  we  cannot  regard  with  unconcern 
the  destruction  of  Peruvian  nationality.  If  our  good  offices  are 
rejected,  and  this  policy  of  the  absorption  of  an  independent 
State  be  persisted  in,  this  Government  will  consider  itself  dis 
charged  from  any  further  obligation  to  be  influenced  in  its 
action  by  the  position  which  Chili  has  assumed,  and  will  hold 
itself  free  to  appeal  to  the  other  Republics  of  this  continent  to 
join  it  in  an  effort  to  avert  consequences  which  cannot  be  con 
fined  to  Chili  and  Peru,  but  which  threaten  with  extreme 
danger  the  political  institutions,  the  peaceful  progress,,  and  the 
liberal  civilization  of  all  America. 


372  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

If,  however,  none  of  these  embarrassing  obstacles  supervene, 
and  Chili  receives  in  a  friendly  spirit  the  representations  of  the 
United  States,  it  will  be  your  purpose  — 

First,  To  concert  such  measures  as  will  enable  Peru  to  estab 
lish  a  regular  Government,  and  initiate  negotiation. 

Second,  To  induce  Chili  to  consent  to  such  negotiation  with 
out  cession  of  territory  as  a  condition  precedent. 

Third,  To  impress  upon  Chili  that  in  such  negotiation  she 
ought  to  allow  Peru  a  fair  opportunity  to  provide  for  a  reason 
able  indemnity  ;  and,  in  this  connection,  to  let  it  be  understood 
that  the  United  States  would  consider  the  imposition  of  an 
extravagant  indemnity,  so  as  to  make  the  cession  of  territory 
necessary  in  satisfaction,  as  more  than  is  justified  by  the  actual 
cost  of  the  war,  and  as  a  solution  threatening  renewed  difficulty 
between  the  two  countries. 

As  it  is  probable  that  some  time  wrill  elapse  before  the  com 
pletion  of  all  the  arrangements  necessary  for  a  final  negotiation, 
this  Government  would  suggest  a  temporary  convention,  which, 
recognizing  the  spirit  of  our  present  friendly  representation, 
would  bring  Peru  and  Chili  into  amicable  conference  and  pro 
vide  fora  meeting  of  plenipotentiaries  to  negotiate  a  permanent 
treaty  of  peace. 

If  negotiation  be  assured,  the  ability  of  Peru  to  furnish  the 
indemnity  will  be  a  matter  of  direct  interest.  Upon  this  sub 
ject  we  have  no  information  upon  which  definite  instructions 
can  now  be  based.  While  you  will  carefully  abstain  from  any 
interposition  in  this  connection,  you  will  examine  and  report  to 
this  Department  promptly  any  plans  which  may  be  suggested. 

You  will  not  indicate  any  wish  that  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  should  act  as  umpire  in  the  adjudications  between 
the  contending  powders.  Should  an  invitation  to  that  effect  be 
extended,  you  will  communicate  by  telegraph  for  instructions. 
The  single  and  simple  desire  of  this  Government  is  to  see  a  just 
and  honorable  peace  at  the  earliest  day  practicable,  and  if  any 
other  American  Government  can  more  effectively  aid  in  pro 
ducing  this  auspicious  result,  the  United  States  will  cordially 
sustain  it  and  lend  such  co-operation  as  the  circumstances  may 
demand. 


OUR  FRIENDLY  RELATIONS  WITH  MEXICO.  373 


OUR    FRIENDLY    RELATIONS    WITH    MEXICO. 


[Dispatch  from  Secretary  Elaine  to  Mr.  Morgan,  Minister  to  Mexico.] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  June  1,  1881. 

SIR,  —  As  the  relations  between  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  and  that  of  Mexico  happily  grow  more  amicable 
and  intimate,  it  is  but  natural  that  a  disposition  should  in  like 
manner  be  developed  between  the  citizens  of  the  respective 
countries  to  seek  new  means  of  fostering  their  material  inter 
ests,  and  that  the  ties  which  spring  from  commercial  inter 
change  should  tend  to  grow  and  strengthen  with  the  growing 
and  strengthening  spirit  of  good  will  which  animates  both  peo 
ples.  That  this  spirit  exists  is  the  most  grateful  proof  that  the 
frank  and  conciliatory  policy  of  the  United  States  towards 
Mexico  has  borne  and  is  bearing  good  fruit.  This  is  especially 
visible  in  the  rapidly  extending  desire  on  the  part  of  the 
citizens  of  this  country  to  take  an  active  share  in  the  prosecu 
tion  of  those  industrial  enterprises  for  which  the  resources  of 
Mexico  offer  so  broad  and  promising  a  field,  as  well  as  in  the 
responsive  and  increasing  disposition  which  is  manifest  on  the 
part  of  the  Mexican  people  to  welcome  such  projects.  No  fact 
in  the  historical  relations  of  the  two  great  Republics  of  the 
Northern  Continent  gives  happier  promise  for  both,  and  it  is  a 
source  of  especial  gratification  to  this  Government  that  the 
jealousies  and  distrusts  which  have  at  times  clouded  the  perfect 
friendship  of  the  two  Governments  are  thus  yielding  to  the 
more  wholesome  spirit  of  reciprocal  frankness  and  confidence. 

It  seems  proper  at  this  time,  when  a  new  administration  has 
constitutionally  and  peacefully  come  into  power  in  Mexico, 
devoted  to  fulfilling  and  extending  the  just  policy  of  its  prede 
cessor,  to  call  your  attention  to  those  general  precepts  which, 


374  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

in  the  judgment  of  the  President,  should  govern  the  relations 
between  the  two  Republics,  and  to  bear  testimony  to  which 
will  be  your  most  important  duty  as  the  diplomatic  representa 
tive  of  the  United  States. 

The  record  of  the  last  fifteen  years  must  have  removed  from 
the  minds  of  the  enlightened  statesmen  of  Mexico  every  lin 
gering  doubt  touching  the  policy  of  the  United  States  toward 
her  sister  republic.  That  policy  is  one  of  faithful  and  impartial 
recognition  of  the  independence  and  the  integrity  of  the  Mexi 
can  nation.  At  this  late  day  it  needs  no  disclaimer  on  our  part 
of  the  existence  of  even  the  faintest  desire  in  the  United  States 
for  territorial  extension  south  of  the  Rio  Grande.  The  bound 
aries  of  the  two  republics  have  been  long  settled  in  conformity 
with  the  best  jurisdictional  interests  of  both.  The  line  of  de 
marcation  is  not  conventional  merely.  It  is  more  than  that.  It 
separates  a  Spanish-American  people  from  a  Saxon-American 
people.  It  divides  one  great  nation  from  another  with  distinct 
and  natural  finality.  The  increasing  prosperity  of  both  Com 
monwealths  can  only  draw  into  closer  union  the  friendly  feel 
ing,  the  political  sympathy,  and  the  varied  interests  which  their 
history  and  neighborhood  have  created  and  encouraged.  In  all 
your  intercourse  with  the  Mexican  Government  and  people  it 
must  be  your  chief  endeavor  to  reflect  this  firm  conviction  of 
your  Government. 

It  is  a  source  of  profound  gratification  to  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  that  the  political  condition  of  Mexico  is  so 
apparently  and  assuredly  in  the  path  of  stability,  and  the  ad 
ministration  of  its  Constitutional  Government  so  regular,  that 
it  can  offer  to  foreign  capital  that  just  and  certain  protection 
without  which  the  prospect  even  of  extravagant  profit  will  fail 
to  tempt  the  extension  of  commercial  and  industrial  enterprise. 
It  is  still  more  gratifying  that  with  a  full  comprehension  of  the 
political  and  social  advantages  of  such  a  mode  of  developing 
the  material  resources  of  the  country,  the  Government  of  Mexico 
cordially  lends  its  influence  to  the  spirit  of  welcome  and  en 
couragement  with  which  the  Mexican  people  seem  disposed  to 
greet  the  importation  of  wealth  and  enterprise. 

The  present  progress  in  this  direction  by  the  National 
Government  of  Mexico  is  but  an  earnest  of  the  great  good 


OUR  FRIEXDLY  RELATIONS  WITH  MEXICO.  375 

which  may  be  accomplished  when  the  intimate  and  necessary 
relations  of  the  two  countries  and  peoples  are  better  understood 
than  now.  To  conduce  to  this  better  understanding  must  be 
your  constant  labor.  While,  therefore,  carefully  avoiding  all 
appearance  of  advocacy  of  any  personal  undertakings  which 
citizens  of  the  United  States  may  desire  to  initiate  in  Mexico, 
you  will  take  every  opportunity  which  you  may  deem  judicious 
to  make  clear  the  spirit  and  motive  that  control  this  movement 
in  the  direction  of  developing  Mexican  resources.  You  will 
impress  upon  the  Government  of  Mexico  the  earnest  wish  and 
hope  felt  by  the  people  and  Government  of  this  country  that 
these  resources  may  be  multiplied  and  rendered  fruitful  for  the 
primary  benefit  of  the  Mexican  people  themselves ;  that  the 
forms  of  constitutional  and  stable  Government  may  be  strength 
ened  as  domestic  wealth  increases  and  as  the  conservative  spirit 
of  widely  distributed  and  permanent  vested  interests  is  more 
and  more  felt ;  that  the  administration  of  the  Mexican  finances, 
fostered  by  these  healthful  tendencies,  may  be  placed  upon  a 
firm  basis ;  that  the  rich  sections  of  the  great  territory  of  the 
republic  may  be  brought  into  closer  intercommunication ;  in  a 
word,  that  Mexico  may  promptly  and  firmly  assume  the  place 
toward  which  she  is  so  manifestly  tending  as  one  of  the  most 
prosperous  and  well-ordered  States  in  the  harmonious  system  of 
Western  republics. 

In  future  dispatches  more  detailed  instructions  will  be  given 
you  touching  certain  points  of  interest  to  the  two  Governments 
in  the  direction  of  an  enlarged  reciprocal  trade  and  interchange 
of  commodities.  It  is  my  present  design  simply  to  acquaint 
you  with  the  President's  views  and  feeling  toward  Mexico  and 
with  the  spirit  which  will  animate  his  policy. 

You  can  read  this  dispatch  to  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs, 
and,  if  he  desires,  leave  a  copy  of  it  with  him. 

[Views  of  the  United  States  Government  touching  the  disturbed  relations 
between  Mexico  and  Guatemala.  Dispatch  from  Secretary  Blaine  to  Mr. 
Morgan,  United  States  Minister  to  Mexico.] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  June  16,  1881. 

Sm,  —  In  my  instruction  of  the  1st  instant,  I  endeavored  to 
set  forth  the  spirit  of  good  will  which  animates  this  Govern- 


376  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

ment  toward  Mexico.  I  trust  no  doubt  can  remain  as  to  the 
sincerity  of  our  friendship.  Believing  that  this  friendship,  and 
the  frankness  which  has  always  distinguished  the  policy  of 
this  country  toward  its  neighbors,  warrant  the  tender  of  ami 
cable  counsel  when  occasion  therefor  shall  appear,  and  deeming 
such  counsel  due  to  our  recognized  impartiality,  and  to  the 
position  of  the  United  States  as  the  founder  and,  in  some  sense, 
the  guarantor  and  guardian  of  Republican  principles  en  the 
American  continent,  it  seems  proper  now  to  call  your  attention 
to  a  subject  touching  which  we  feel  some  natural  concern.  I 
refer  to  the  question  of  boundaries  and  territorial  jurisdiction 
pending  between  Mexico  and  Guatemala. 

In  the  time  of  the  Empire,  the  forces  of  Iturbide  overran  a 
large  part  of  the  territory  of  what  now  constitutes  Central 
America,  which  had  then  recently  thrown  off  the  Spanish  domi 
nation.  The  changing  fortunes  of  war  resulted  in  the  with 
drawal  of  Mexican  forces  from  most  of  that  region,  except  the 
important  provinces  of  Soconusco  and  Chiapas,  which  remained 
under  their  control.  Since  that  time  the  boundaries  between 
the  two  countries  have  never  been  adjusted  upon  a  satisfactory 
basis.  Mexico,  becoming  a  Republic,  did  not  forego  claims 
based  on  the  imperial  policy  of  conquest  and  absorption,  while 
Guatemala,  resisting  further  progress  of  Mexican  arms,  and  dis 
puting,  step  by  step,  the  conquests  already  made,  has  never 
been  able  to  come  to  a  decision  with  her  more  powerful  neigh 
bor  concerning  the  relative  extension  of  their  jurisdiction  in 
the  disputed  strip  of  territory  lying  between  the  Gulf  of 
Tehuantepec  and  the  Peninsula  of  Yucatan. 

Under  these  circumstances,  the  Government  of  Guatemala 
has  made  a  formal  application  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States  to  lend  his  good  offices  toward  the  restoration  of  a  better 
state  of  feeling  between  the  two  Republics.  This  application  is 
made  in  frank  and  conciliatory  terms,  as  to  the  natural  pro 
tector  of  the  rights  and  national  integrity  of  the  Republican 
forms  of  Government  existing  near  our  shores  and  to  which 
we  are  bound  by  many  ties  of  history  and  of  material  interest. 
This  Government  can  do  no  less  than  give  friendly  and  con 
siderate  heed  to  the  representations  of  Guatemala,  even  as  it 
would  be  glad  to  do  were  the  appeal  made  by  Mexico,  in  the 


OUR  FRIENDLY  RELATIONS  WITH  MEXICO.  377 

interest  of  justice  and  a  better  understanding.  Events,  fresh 
in  the  memory  of  the  living  generation  of  Mexicans,  when  the 
moral  and  material  support  of  the  United  States,  although  then 
engaged  in  a  desperate  domestic  struggle,  was  freely  lent  to 
avert  the  danger  which  a  foreign  empire  threatened  to  the 
national  life  of  the  Mexican  Republic,  afford  a  gratifying  proof 
of  the  unselfishness  with  which  the  United  States  regards  all 
that  concerns  the  welfare  and  existence  of  its  sister  republics 
of  the  continent. 

It  is  alleged,  on  behalf  of  Guatemala,  that  diplomatic  efforts 
to  come  to  a  better  understanding  with  Mexico  have  proved 
unavailing ;  that  under  a  partial  and  preliminary  accord  look 
ing  to  the  ascertainment  of  the  limits  in  dispute,  Guatemalan 
surveying  parties,  sent  out  to  study  the  land,  with  a  view  to 
proposing  a  basis  of  definitive  settlement,  have  been  impris 
oned  by  the  Mexican  authorities  ;  that  Guatemalan  agents  for 
the  taking  of  a  census  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  territory  in 
question  have  been  dealt  with  in  like  summary  manner  ;  and, 
in  fine,  that  the  Government  of  Mexico  has  slowly  but  steadily 
encroached  upon  the  bordering  country  heretofore  held  by 
Guatemala,  substituting  the  local  authorities  of  Mexico  for  those 
already  in  possession,  and  so  widening  the  area  in  contention. 

It  is  not  the  province  of  the  United  States  to  express  an 
opinion  as  to  the  extent  of  either  the  Guatemalan  or  the 
Mexican  claim  to  this  region.  This  Government  is  not  a  self- 
constituted  arbiter  of  the  destinies  of  either  country,  or  of 
both,  in  this  matter.  It  is  simply  the  impartial  friend  of  both, 
ready  to  tender  frank  and  earnest  counsel  touching  any  thing 
which  may  menace  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  its  neighbors. 
It  is,  above  all,  anxious  to  do  any  and  every  thing  which  will 
tend  to  make  stronger  the  natural  union  of  the  republics  of 
the  continent,  in  the  face  of  the  tendencies  of  other  and  distant 
forms  of  government  to  influence  the  internal  affairs  of  Spanish 
America.  It  is  especially  anxious,  in  the  pursuance  of  this 
policy,  to  see  the  Central  American  Republics  more  securely 
united  than  they  have  been  in  protection  of  their  common 
interests,  which  interests  are,  in  their  outward  relations,  identi 
cal  in  principle  with  those  of  Mexico  and  the  United  States. 
It  feels  that  every  thing  which  may  lessen  the  good  will  and 


378  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

harmony  earnestly  to  be  desired  between  the  Spanish-American 
Republics  of  the  Isthmus  must  in  the  end  disastrously  affect 
their  mutual  well-being.  The  responsibility  for  the  maintenance 
of  this  common  attitude  of  united  strength  is,  in  the  President's 
conception,  shared  by  all,  and  rests  no  less  upon  the  strong 
States  than  upon  the  weak. 

Without,  therefore,  in  any  way  prejudicing  the  contention 
between  Mexico  and  Guatemala,  but  acting  as  the  unbiased 
counselor  of  both,  the  President  deems  it  his  duty  to  set  before 
the  Government  of  Mexico  his  conviction  of  the  danger  to  the 
principles  that  Mexico  has  signally  and  successfully  defended 
in  the  past,  which  would  ensue  should  disrespect  be  shown 
for  the  boundaries  that  separate  her  from  her  weaker  neigh 
bors,  or  should  the  authority  of  force  be  resorted  to  in  the  es 
tablishment  of  rights  over  territory  which  they  claim,  without 
the  conceded  justification  of  her  title  thereto.  Especially  would 
the  President  regard  it  as  an  unfriendly  act  toward  his  cherished 
plan  of  upbuilding  strong  Republican  governments  in  Spanish 
America,  if  Mexico,  whose  power  and  generosity  should  be  alike 
signal  in  such  a  case,  should  seek  ,or  permit  any  misunderstand 
ing  with  Guatemala,  when  the  path  toward  a  pacific  avoidance 
of  trouble  is  an  international  duty  at  once  easy  and  imperative. 

You  are  directed  to  request  an  interview  with  Senor  Mariscal, 
in  which  to  acquaint  him  with  the  purport  of  this  instruction. 
In  doing  so,  your  judgment  and  discretion  may  have  full  scope  to 
avoid  any  misunderstanding  on  his  part  of  the  spirit  of  friendly 
counsel  which  prompts  the  President's  course.  Should  Senor 
Mariscal  evince  a  disposition  to  become  more  intimately  ac 
quainted  with  the  President's  views  after  your  verbal  exposition 
thereof,  you  are  at  liberty  to  read  this  dispatch  to  him,  and, 
should  he  so  desire,  to  give  him  a  copy. 

[Views  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  touching  disturbed  relations 
of  Mexico  and  Guatemala.  Second  dispatch  from  Secretary  Elaine  to  Mr. 
Morgan,  Minister  to  Mexico.] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  June  21,  1881. 

SIR,  —  I  had  hardly  completed  my  instruction  to  you  of  the 
16th  instant,  when  information  reached  me  from  the  United 
States  minister  at  the  Guatemalan  capital,  placing  in  a  still 


OUR  FRIENDLY  RELATIONS  WITH  MEXICO.  379 

graver  light  the  condition  of  the  relations  between  Mexico  and 
Guatemala,  touching  the  possession  of  the  territory  of  Soco- 
nusco.  In  fact,  so  serious  is  the  apprehension  caused  in  the 
mind  of  the  President  by  these  untoward  reports,  that  I  feel 
constrained  to  supplement  my  previous  instructions  to  you  on 
the  subject  with  even  more  energy  and  directness. 

It  would  appear  now  that  the  movement  on  the  part  of 
Mexico  was  not  merely  to  obtain  possession  of  the  disputed 
territory,  but  to  precipitate  hostilities  with  Guatemala,  with  the 
ultimate  view  of  extending  her  borders  by  actual  conquest. 
Large  bodies  of  Mexican  troops  are  said  to  be  on  their  way  to 
Soconusco,  and  the  exigency  is  reported  to  be  so  alarming  that 
plans  for  national  defense  are  uppermost  in  the  minds  of  Presi 
dent  Barrios  and  his  advisers.  Frequent  border  raids  into 
Guatemalan  territory  have  inflamed  the  passions  of  the  resi 
dents  of  the  frontier  country,  and  the  imminence  of  a  collision 
is  very  great.  Of  the  possible  consequence  of  war  it  may  be 
premature  to  speak,  but  the  information  possessed  by  the  De 
partment  intimates  the  probable  extension  of  hostilities  to  the 
other  Central  American  States  and  their  eventual  absorption 
into  the  Mexican  federal  system. 

I  cannot  believe  it  possible  that  these  designs  seriouslj'  enter 
into  the  policy  of  the  Mexican  Government.  Of  late  years 
the  American  movement  toward  permanence  of  international 
boundaries  has  been  so  marked,  and  so  essential  a  part  of  the 
continental  policy  of  the  American  Republics,  that  any  depart 
ure  therefrom  becomes  necessarily  a  menace  to  the  interests 
of  all. 

This  is  a  matter  touching  which  the  now  established  policy 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  refrain  from  terri 
torial  acquisition  gives  it  the  right  to  use  its  friendly  offices  in 
discouragement  of  any  movement  on  the  part  of  neighboring 
States  which  may  tend  to  disturb  the  balance  of  power  between 
them.  More  than  this,  the  maintenance  of  this  honorable  atti 
tude  of  example  involves  to  a  large  extent  a  moral  obligation 
on  our  part,  as  the  disinterested  friend  of  all  our  sister  States, 
to  exert  our  influence  for  the  preservation  of  the  national  life 
and  integrity  of  any  one  of  them  against  aggression,  whether 
this  may  come  from  abroad  or  from  another  American  Republic. 


380  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPOXDENCE. 

No  State  in  the  American  system  has  more  unequivocally 
condemned  the  forcible  extension  of  domain,  at  the  expense  of 
a  weaker  neighbor,  than  Mexico  herself;  and  no  State  more 
heartily  concurs  in  the  condemnation  of  Filibusterism  in  every 
form  than  the  United  States.  It  is  clearly  to  the  mutual  inter 
est  of  the  two  countries,  to  whose  example  the  success  of  Re 
publican  institutions  on  this  continent  is  largely  due,  that  their 
policy  in  this  regard  should  be  identical  and  unmistakable. 

As  long  as  the  broadened  international  diplomacy  of  our  day 
affords  peaceable  recourse  to  principles  of  equity  and  justice  in 
settlement  of  controversies  like  that  between  Mexico  and 
Guatemala,  the  outbreak  of  a  war  between  them  would,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  President,  involve  much  graver  results  than 
the  mere  transitory  disturbance  of  the  entente  cordiale  so  much 
desired  by  the  United  States  Government  between  all  the 
American  republics.  Besides  the  transfers  of  territory  which 
might  follow  as  enforced  compensation  for  the  costs  of  a  war, 
it  is  easy  to  foresee  the  serious  complications  and  consequent 
dangers  to  the  American  system,  should  an  opening  be  afforded 
to  foreign  Powers  to  throw  their  influence  or  force  into  the  scale 
in  determination  of  the  contest.  Mexico  herself  has  but  too 
recently  recovered  from  the  effects  of  such  a  foreign  constraint 
not  to  appreciate  at  its  full  force  the  consideration  thus  pre 
sented.  The  peaceful  maintenance  of  the  status  quo  of  the 
American  commonwealths  is  of  the  very  essence  of  their  policy 
of  harmonious  alliance  for  self-preservation,  and  is  of  even  more 
importance  to  Mexico  than  to  the  United  States. 

I  have  adverted  in  my  dispatch  of  the  16th  instant,  to  the 
desire  of  the  United  States  that  its  neighbors  should  possess 
strong  and  prosperous  Governments,  to  the  assurance  of  their 
tranquillity  from  internal  disturbance  and  outside  interference. 
While  we  wish  this  happy  result  for  Mexico,  we  equally  wish  it 
for  the  other  Spanish-American  nations.  It  is  no  less  indispen 
sable  to  the  welfare  of  Central  America  than  of  Mexico,  and, 
by  moral  influence  and  the  interposition  of  good  offices,  it  is 
the  desire  and  the  intention  of  the  United  States  to  hold  up  the 
republics  of  Central  America  in  their  old  strength  and  to  do  all 
that  may  be  done  toward  insuring  the  tranquillity  of  their 
relations  among  themselves  and  their  collective  security  as  an 


OUR  FRIENDLY  RELATIONS  WITH  MEXICO.  381 

association  of  allied  interests,  possessing  in  their  common  rela 
tionship  to  the  outer  world  all  the  elements  of  national 
existence.  In  this  enlarged  policy  we  confidently  ask  the  co 
operation  of  Mexico.  A  contrary  course  on  her  part  could  only 
be  regarded  as  an  unwise  step,  while  any  movement  directly 
leading  to  the  absorption,  in  whole  or  part,  of  her  weaker  neigh 
bors  would  be  deemed  an  act  unfriendly  to  the  best  interests  of 
America. 

It  is  desired  that  you  should  make  earnest  but  calm  represen 
tation  of  these  views  of  the  President  to  the  Mexican  minister 
of  foreign  affairs.  In  addition  to  embodying  the  main  points  of 
my  previous  instruction,  you  will  make  use  of  such  temperate 
reasoning  as  will  serve  to  show  Senor  Mariscal  that  we  expect 
every  effort  to  be  made  by  his  Government  to  avert  a  conflict 
with  Guatemala,  by  diplomatic  means,  or,  these  failing,  by  resort 
to  arbitration.  You  will  intimate  to  Sefior  Mariscal  discreetly, 
but  distinctly,  that  the  good  feeling  between  Mexico  and  the 
United  States  will  be  fortified  by  a  frank  avowal  that  the  Mexi 
can  policy  toward  the  neighboring  States  is  not  one  of  conquest 
or  aggrandizement  but  of  conciliation,  peace,  and  friendship. 

I  have  written  this  instruction  rather  to  strengthen  your  own 
hands  in  the  execution  of  the  delicate  and  responsible  duty  thus 
confided  to  you  than  with  a  view  to  its  formal  communication 
to  Senor  Mariscal  by  leaving  a  copy  of  it  with  him.  If,  in 
your  discretion,  the  important  ends  in  view  will  be  subserved 
by  your  making  the  Minister  acquainted  with  portions  hereof, 
you  are  at  liberty  to  do  so,  while  regarding  the  instruction 
as  a  whole  in  a  confidential  light,  and  as  supplementary  to 
my  instruction  of  the  16th,  which  you  have  been  authorized 
to  communicate  in  extenso,  if  desirable. 


[Views  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  touching  the  disturbed  rela 
tions  between  Mexico  and  Guatemala.  Third  dispatch  from  Secretary  Blaine 
to  Mr.  Morgan,  Minister  to  Mexico.] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  Nov.  28,  1881. 

SIR,  —  Referring  to  your  correspondence  with  this  depart 
ment  since  its  instruction  tendering  the  good  offices  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  in  aid  of  the  amicable  set- 


882  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

tlement  of  the  differences  between  Mexico  and  Guatemala,  I 
have  to  remark  that  it  would  be  a  matter  of  the  gravest  dis 
appointment  if  I  found  myself  compelled  to  agree  with  you  in 
the  conclusion  which  you  seem  to  have  reached  in  your  last 
dispatch. 

Reporting  in  your  dispatch  of  Sept.  22,  1881,  your  most 
recent  conversation  with  Senor  Mariscal,  the  Mexican  secretary 
for  foreign  affairs,  you  say,  — 

"I  venture  to  suggest  that,  unless  the  Government  is  prepared  to  an 
nounce  to  the  Mexican  Government  that  it  will  actively,  if  necessary,  pre 
serve  the  peace,  it  would  be  the  part  of  wisdom  on  our  side  to  leave  the 
matter  where  it  is.  Negotiations  on  the  subject  will  not  benefit  Guatemala, 
and  you  may  depend  upon  it  what  we  have  already  done  in  this  direction 
has  not  tended  to  the  increasing  of  the  cordial  relations  which  I  know  it  is 
so  much  your  desire  to  cultivate  with  this  nation." 

"To  leave  the  matter  where  it  is,"  you  must  perceive,  is 
simply  useless,  for  it  will  not  remain  there.  The  friendly 
relations  of  the  United  States  and  Mexico  would  certainly  not 
be  promoted  by  the  refusal  of  the  good  offices  of  this  Govern 
ment,  tendered  in  a  spirit  of  the  most  cordial  regard  both  for 
the  interests  and  honor  of  Mexico,  and  suggested  only  by  the 
earnest  desire  to  prevent  a  war  useless  in  its  purpose,  deplor 
able  in  its  means,  and  dangerous  to  the  best  interests  of  all  the 
Central  American  republics  in  its  consequences.  To  put  aside 
such  an  amicable  intervention  as  an  unfriendly  intrusion,  or  to 
treat  it  as  I  regret  to  see  the  Mexican  secretary  for  foreign 
affairs  seems  disposed,  as  a  partisan  manifestation  on  behalf  of 
claims  which  we  have  not  examined  and  interests  which  we 
totally  misunderstand,  can  certainly  not  contribute  "to  the 
increasing  of  the  cordial  relations  which  you  know  it  is  so 
much  our  desire  to  cultivate  with  Mexico." 

But,  more  than  this,  "to  leave  the  matter  where  it  is"  is  to 
leave  Mexico  and  Guatemala  confronting  each  other  in  armed 
hostility,  with  the  certainty  that  irritation  and  anger  on  the 
one  side  and  extreme  apprehension  on  the  other  will  develop 
some  untoward  incident  leading  to  actual  collision.  In  such 
event  no  successful  resistance  can  be  anticipated  on  the  part 
of  Guatemala.  Whether  the  claims  of  Mexico  be  moderate  or 
extravagant,  whether  the  cession  of  territory  be  confined  to 
the  present  alleged  boundary  lines  or  be  extended  to  meet  the 


OUR  FRIENDLY  RELATIONS  WITH  MEXICO.  383 

necessities  of  a  war  indemnity,  there  would  be  another  lament 
able  demonstration  on  this  continent  of  the  so-called  right  of 
conquest,  the  general  disturbance  of  the  friendly  relations 
of  the  American  republics,  and  the  postponement  for  an  indefi 
nite  period  of  that  sympathy  of  feeling,  that  community  of 
purpose,  and  that  unity  of  interest,  upon  the  development 
of  which  depends  the  future  prosperity  of  these  countries. 

The  Republic  of  Guatemala,  one  of  those  American  repub-. 
lies  in  whose  fortunes  this  Government  naturally  feels  a  friendly 
interest,  communicated  to  this  Government  that  there  existed 
between  it  and  Mexico  certain  differences  which,  after  much 
diplomatic  consultation,  had  failed  to  reach  a  satisfactory  settle 
ment.  Recognizing  the  relation  of  the  United  States  to  all  the 
republics  of  this  continent,  aware  of  the  friendly  services  which 
this  Government  has  never  failed  to  render  to  Mexico,  and 
presuming  not  unnaturally  that  Mexico  would  receive  our  ami 
cable  counsel  with  cordiality  and  confidence,  the  Government 
of  Guatemala  asked  our  good  offices  with  that  Power  for  the 
purpose  of  inducing  it  to  submit  to  an  impartial  arbitration 
those  differences  upon  which  they  had  been  unable  to  agree. 

To  refuse  such  a  request  would  not  only  have  been  a  viola 
tion  of  international  courtesy  to  Guatemala,  but  an  indica 
tion  of  a  want  of  confidence  in  the  purposes  and  character 
of  the  Mexican  Government  which  we  could  not  and  did  not 
entertain. 

In  tendering  our  good  offices,  the  Mexican  Government  was 
distinctly  informed  that  the  United  States  — 

"  is  not  a  self-constituted  arbitrator  of  the  destinies  of  either  country  or 
of  both  in  this  matter.  It  is  simply  the  impartial  friend  of  both,  ready  to 
tender  frank  and  earnest  counsel  touching  any  thing  which  may  menace  the 
peace  and  prosperity  of  its  neighbors." 

Before  this  instruction  could  have  reached  you,  information 
was  received  that  large  bodies  of  Mexican  troops  had  been 
ordered  to  the  frontier  in  dispute.  You  were  therefore  directed 
to  urge  upon  the  Mexican  Government  the  propriety  of  abstain 
ing  from  all  such  hostile  demonstration  in  order  to  afford  oppor 
tunity  for  the  friendly  solution  of  the  differences  between  the 
two  governments.  It  is  unnecessary  now  to  repeat  the  reasons 
which  you  were  instructed  to  submit  to  the  consideration  of 


384  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

the  Mexican  Government,  which  were  stated  in  the  most  earnest 
and  friendly  spirit,  and  which  were  communicated  by  you  to  the 
Mexican  secretary  for  foreign  affairs  with  entire  fidelity. 

I  now  learn  from  your  dispatches  that  our  information  was 
correct ;  that  Mexican  troops  have  been  ordered  to  the  disputed 
boundary  line,  and  that,  while  the  Mexican  Government  does 
not  absolutely  reject  a  possible  future  arbitration,  it  is  unwilling 
to  postpone  its  own  action  to  further  discussion,  and  does  not 
receive  the  good  offices  of  this  Government  in  the  spirit  in 
which  they  have  been  tendered.  The  United  States  does  not 
pretend  to  direct  the  policy  of  Mexico,  nor  has  it  made  any 
pretension  to  decide  in  advance  upon  the  merits  of  the  contro 
versy  between  Mexico  and  Guatemala.  The  Mexican  Govern 
ment  is  of  course  free  to  decline  our  counsel,  however  friendly. 
But  it  is  necessary  that  we  should  know  distinctly  what  the 
Mexican  Government  has  decided.  It  is  useless,  and  from  your 
dispatches  I  infer  it  would  be  irritating,  to  keep  before  the 
Government  of  Mexico  the  offer  of  friendly  intervention,  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  would  not  be  just  to  Guatemala  to  hold 
that  Government  in  suspense  as  to  whether  there  was  a  possi 
bility  of  the  acceptance  of  the  amicable  mediation  which  we 
have  offered. 

You  will,  therefore,  upon  the  receipt  of  this  instruction,  ask 
for  an  interview  with  the  secretary  for  foreign  affairs.  You 
will  press  upon  his  reconsideration  the  views  which  you  have 
already  submitted  to  him  ;  assure  him  of  the  earnestness  with 
which  this  Government  desires  a  peaceful  solution  of  the  exist 
ing  differences,  and  inform  him  of  our  profound  regret  and 
disappointment  that  the  tender  of  our  good  offices  has  not 
been  received  in  the  spirit  in  which  it  was  made.  You  will,  if 
he  affords  you  the  opportunity,  endeavor  to  enforce  the  prac 
ticability  of  the  solution  which  you  suggested  both  to  himself 
and  the  Guatemalan  minister,  by  which  the  arbitration  could 
be  limited  to  the  question  of  boundary  without  involving  the 
title  to  the  province  of  Chiapas. 

If  the  Government  of  Mexico  should  be  disposed  to  accept 
an  arbitration,  limited  in  its  points  of  settlement  —  as  M. 
Herrera,  the  Guatemalan  minister  has  indicated  as  probably 
acceptable  to  his  Government  —  you  will  ask  the  assurance  of 


OUR  FRIENDLY  RELATIONS  WITH  MEXICO.  385 

the  Mexican  Government  that  pending  the  discussions  neces 
sary  to  perfect  such  an  arrangement  all  hostile  demonstration 
should  be  avoided,  and  if  possible  that  the  Mexican  troops 
should  be  withdrawn  from  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  dis 
puted  boundary.  But  this  latter  request  you  will  not  insist 
upon,  if  it  should  be  an  obstacle  to  obtaining  the  consent  of 
Mexico  to  a  limited  arbitration. 

Should  the  Mexican  Government,  however,  decide  that  it 
is  not  consistent  with  its  views  to  accept  a  friendly  interven 
tion  in  the  differences  between  itself  and  Guatemala,  you  will 
inform  the  Secretary  for  foreign  affairs  that  you  accept  this 
decision  as  undoubtedly  within  the  clear  right  of  Mexico. 
You  will  express  the  very  deep  and  sincere  regret  which  this 
Government  will  feel  if  it  shall  find  the  powerful  Republic  of 
Mexico  unwilling  to  join  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
in  maintaining  and  establishing  the  principle  of  friendly  arbitra 
tion  for  international  differences  on  the  continent  of  America. 
Mexico  and  the  United  States,  acting  in  cordial  harmony,  can 
induce  all  the  other  independent  governments  of  North  and 
South  America  to  aid  in  fixing  this  policy  of  peace  for  all 
future  disputes  between  nations  of  the  Western  Hemisphere. 
It  would  be  a  marked  and  impressive  precedent,  if,  in  a  dis 
pute  with  a  weaker  neighbor,  Mexico  should  frankly  consent  to 
a  friendly  arbitration  of  all  existing  differences. 

You  will  further  say  to  Mr.  Mariscal  that  you  are  definitely 
instructed  to  call  his  attention  to  an  expression  of  opinion  which 
you  have  reported  in  your  dispatch  of  llth  of  August,  1881,  as 
follows :  — 

"  lie,  Senor  Mariscal,  appears  to  entertain  a  very  bad  opinion  of  the 
President  of  Guatemala,  and  to  think  that  his  appeal  to  the  United  States 
has  a  purpose  beyond  the  settlement  of  the  boundary  between  the  two  coun 
tries.  He  said,  for  instance,  he  had  been  informed  that  you  had  expressed 
an  opinion  favorable  to  the  consolidation  of  the  Central  American  republics 
into  one  Government ;  that  the  President  of  Guatemala  was  favorable  to 
such  a  project ;  that  he  would  like,  in  such  an  event,  to  become  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  new  nation,  and  that  he  was  endeavoring  to  obtain  the  influence 
of  the  United  States  to  further  his  ambition  in  that  direction.  He  seems 
impressed  with  the  idea  that  General  Barrios  is  Mexico's  enemy,  and  that 
it  would  not  be  well  to  have  his  power  increased." 

Of  course  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has  no  infor- 
mation  as  to  the  personal  ambitions  of  General  Barrios,  and  it 


386  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

would  deem  any  inquiry  into  or  consideration  of  such  a  subject 
both  unworthy  and  improper  in  any  discussion  of  the  great 
interests  which  concern  the  people  of  Central  America,  and 
their  relation  to  the  kindred  republics  of  this  continent.  I  am 
unwilling  to  believe,  and,  if  compelled  to  believe,  should  deeply 
regret,  that  any  such  consideration  could  affect  the  temper  or 
thought  of  the  Mexican  Government  in  determining  its  policy 
towards  the  republics  of  Central  America. 

But  in  reference  to  the  union  of  the  Central  American  repub 
lics  under  one  Federal  Government,  the  United  States  is  ready 
to  avow  that  no  subject  appeals  more  strongly  to  its  sympathy 
nor  more  decidedly  to  its  judgment.  Nor  is  this  a  new  policy. 
For  many  years  this  Government  has  urged  upon  the  Central 
American  States  the  importance  of  such  an  union  to  the  crea 
tion  of  a  well-ordered  and  constitutionally  governed  republic, 
and  our  ministers  have  been  instructed  to  impress  this  upon  the 
individual  governments  to  which  they  have  been  accredited, 
and  to  the  Central  American  statesmen  with  whom  they  have 
been  associated.  We  have  always  cherished  the  belief  that 
in  this  effort  we  had  the  sincere  sympathy  and  cordial  co-opera 
tion  of  the  Mexican  Government.  Under  the  conviction  that 
the  future  of  the  people  of  Central  America  is  absolutely 
dependent  upon  the  establishment  of  a  Federal  Government 
which  would  give  strength  abroad  and  maintain  peace  at  home, 
our  chief  motive  in  the  recent  communications  to  Mexico  was 
to  prevent  the  diminution,  either  political  or  territorial,  of  any 
one  of  these  States,  or  the  disturbance  of  their  exterior  relations, 
in  order  that,  trusting  to  the  joint  aid  and  friendship  of  Mexico 
and  the  United  States,  they  might  be  encouraged  to  persist  in 
their  effort  to  establish  a  Government  which  would,  both  for 
their  advantage  and  ours,  represent  their  combined  wealth,  in 
telligence  and  character. 

If  this  Government  is  expected  to  infer  from  the  language  of 
Senor  Mariscal  that  the  prospect  of  such  a  result  is  not  agree 
able  to  the  policy  of  Mexico,  and  that  the  interest  which  the 
United  States  has  always  manifested  in  its  consummation 
renders  unwelcome  the  friendly  intervention  which  we  have 
offered,  I  can  only  say  that  it  deepens  the  regret  with  which 
we  shall  learn  the  decision  of  the  Mexican  Government,  and 


OUR  FRIENDLY  RELATIONS  WITH  MEXICO.  387 

compels  me  to  declare  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  will  consider  a  hostile  demonstration  against  Guatemala 
for  the  avowed  purpose,  or  with  the  certain  result  of  weak 
ening  her  power  in  such  an  effort,  as  an  act  not  in  consonance 
with  the  position  and  character  of  Mexico,  not  in  harmony 
with  the  friendly  relations  existing  between  us,  and  injurious  to 
the  best  interests  of  all  the  republics  of  this  continent. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  has  sincere  sympathy 
with  the  Spanish  republics  of  America,  and  profound  interest 
in  their  prosperity ;  and  is  influenced  by  no  selfish  considera 
tions  in  its  earnest  efforts  to  prevent  war  between  them.  This 
country  will  continue  its  policy  of  peace  even  if  it  cannot  have 
the  great  aid  which  the  co-operation  of  Mexico  would  assure  ; 
and  it  will  hope,  at  no  distant  day,  to  see  such  concord  and 
co-operation  between  all  the  nations  of  America  as  will  render 
war  impossible. 


388  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 


THE    UNITED    STATES    AND    THE    HAWAIIAN 
KINGDOM. 


[After  the  United  States  had  negotiated  a  Treaty  of  Reciprocity  with  the 
Kingdom  of  Hawaii  (Sandwich  Islands),  Great  Britain  sought  to  claim  the 
same  trade  relations  under  a  treaty  which  contained  the  "  most  favored  nation  " 
clause.  Being  advised  of  this  movement  by  Honorable  James  M.  Comly, 
American  minister  at  Honolulu,  Secretary  Blaine  sent  instructions  contained 

in  the  following  dispatches :  — ] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  June  30,  1881. 

SIR,  —  Your  dispatch  of  the  6th  instant  has  been  considered 
in  connection  with  your  former  advices,  to  which  you  particularly 
refer. 

Your  course,  upon  the  question  to  which  you  have  called 
the  attention  of  the  Department,  is  approved.  While  I  desire 
earnestly  to  avoid  the  use  of  imperative  language  toward  the 
Hawaiian  Government,  and  prefer  that  our  relation  in  any  con 
sequent 'discussion  should  be  that  of  friendly  advice  and  sup 
port,  this  Government  cannot  permit  any  violation,  direct  or 
indirect,  of  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  treaty  of  1875. 

That  treaty  was  made  at  the  continuous  and  urgent  request 
of  the  Hawaiian  Government.  It  was,  as  it  was  intended  to  be, 
an  evidence  of  the  friendship  of  the  United  States,  and  was 
shaped  by  a  large  and  liberal  disposition  on  our  part  to  consult 
the  wishes  and  interests  of  the  Hawaiian  Government.  As  you 
are  aware,  there  was  much  opposition  to  some  of  its  concessions 
by  our  own  citizens  whose  capital  was  employed  in  certain 
agricultural  industries.  The  term  of  the  treaty  was  limited  in 
order  that  both  parties  might  obtain  practical  experience  of  its 
operation ;  and  in  order  to  secure  the  experiment  from  possible 
disturbance  it  was  expressly  stipulated  — 

"  on  the  part  of  His  Hawaiian  Majesty  that  so  long  as  this  treaty  shall 
remain  in  force,  he  will  not  make  any  treaty  by  which  any  other  nation  shall 
obtain  the  same  privileges,  relative  to  the  admission  of  any  articles  free  of 
duty,  hereby  secured  to  the  United  States."  (Article  IV.) 


THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  THE  HAWAIIAN  KINGDOM.    389 

It  would  be  an  unnecessary  waste  of  time  and  argument  to 
undertake  an  elaborate  demonstration  of  a  proposition  so  ob 
vious  as  that  the  extension  of  the  privileges  of  this  treaty  to 
other  nations  under  a  "  most  favored  nation  "  clause  in  existing 
treaties,  would  be  as  flagrant  a  violation  of  the  explicit  stipula 
tion  as  a  specific  treaty  making  the  concession. 

You  are  instructed  to  say  to  the  Hawaiian  Government  that 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  considers  this  stipulation 
as  of  the  very  essence  of  the  treaty  and  cannot  consent  to  its 
abrogation  or  modification,  directly  or  indirectly.  You  will  add 
that  if  any  other  power  should  deem  it  proper  to  employ  undue 
influence  upon  the  Hawaiian  Government  to  persuade  or  com 
pel  action  in  derogation  of  this  treaty,  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  will  not  be  unobservant  of  its  rights  and  interests 
and  will  be  neither  unwilling  nor  unprepared  to  support  the 
Hawaiian  Government  in  the  faithful  discharge  of  its  treaty 
obligations. 

In  reference  to  the  probability  of  a  judicial  construction  of 
the  treaty  by  the  Hawaiian  courts,  upon  proceedings  instituted 
by  a  British  merchant,  I  would  have  been  glad  if  you  had  been 
able  to  furnish 'me  with  the  correspondence  between  the  British 
commissioner  and  the  Hawaiian  secretary  for  foreign  affairs. 
From  your  history  of  the  controversy,  I  find  it  difficult  to 
understand  how  Her  Britannic  Majesty's  Government  can  con 
sistently  maintain  a  right  of  diplomatic  intervention  for  the 
settlement  of  any  claim  for  the  difference  in  duty  imposed 
under  the  British  treaties  and  under  the  treaty  with  the  United 
States. 

Be  that  as  it  may,  a  judicial  decision  of  this  question  by  the 
Hawaiian  courts  would  be  as  unsatisfactory  to  the  United  States 
as  to  Great  Britain.  I  am  unaware  whether  or  not  a  treaty, 
according  to  the  Hawaiian  Constitution,  is,  as  with  us,  a  supreme 
law  of  the  land,  upon  the  construction  of  which  —  the  proper 
case  occurring  —  every  citizen  would  have  a  right  to  the 
judgment  of  the  courts. 

But  even  if  it  be  so,  and  if  the  judicial  department  is  entirely 
independent  of  the  executive  authority  of  the  Hawaiian  Gov 
ernment,  then  the  decision  of  the  court  would  be  the  authorized 
interpretation  of  the  Hawaiian  Government,  and  however  bind- 


390  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

ing  upon  that  Government  would  be  none  the  less  a  violation 
of  the  treaty. 

In  the  event,  therefore,  that  a  judicial  construction  of  the 
treaty  should  annul  the  privileges  stipulated,  and  be  carried 
into  practical  execution,  this  Government  would  have  no  alter 
native  and  would  be  compelled  to  consider  such  action  as  the 
violation  by  the  Hawaiian  Government  of  the  express  terms 
and  conditions  of  the  treaty,  and,  with  whatever  regret,  would 
be  forced  to  consider  what  course  in  reference  to  its  own  inter 
ests  had  become  necessary  upon  the  manifestation  of  such  un 
friendly  feeling. 

The  diligence  and  ability  which  you  have  given  to  the  con 
sideration  of  this  subject  render  perhaps  any  further  instruction 
unnecessary,  but  I  will  suggest  that  in  your  communications 
with  the  Hawaiian  Government  you  should  convey  the  impres 
sion  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  believes  it  to  be 
the  desire  and  intention  of  the  Hawaiian  Government  to  carry 
out  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  in  good  faith,  and  that  we  un 
derstand  and  appreciate  the  unjust  pressure  of  foreign  interests 
and  influence  brought  to  divert  it  from  its  plain  and  honorable 
duty.  The  position  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in 
your  representations  should  be  rather  that  of  encouragement  of 
the  Hawaiian  Government  to  persevere  in  the  faithful  discharge 
of  its  treaty  obligations,  than  complaint  of  any  anticipated 
dereliction. 

The  Department  will  be  glad  of  the  fullest  and  promptest 
communication  upon  this  subject. 

[Dispatch  on  same  subject  from  Secretary  Elaine  to  Mr.  Comly,  Minister  at 
Honolulu.] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  Nov.  19,  1881. 

SIR, — In  your  dispatch  you  have  informed  this  Department 
of  the  efforts  made  by  the  British  commissioner  to  prejudice  the 
interests  and  influence  of  the  United  States  in  the  Hawaiian 
Islands ;  and  you  properly  assume  that  such  efforts,  so  far  as 
they  tend  to  improve  the  diplomatic  position  of  his  country  by 
his  personal  conduct,  must  be  counteracted  by  corresponding 
endeavors  on  your  part  without  the  formal  intervention  of  this 
Government. 


THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  THE  HAWAIIAN  KINGDOM.    391 

The  action  of  the  Government  must  necessarily  await  the 
actual  occurrence  or  threatened  probability  of  some  official 
transaction  in  conflict  with  its  treaty  rights.  But  with  the 
proper  information  before  it,  the  Department  would  undoubt 
edly  instruct  you  to  anticipate  any  transaction  of  this  character 
by  such  diplomatic  remonstrance  as  our  relations  with  Hawaii 
would  justify. 

It  is  difficult  to  say  that  the  information  derived  through  the 
newspapers  in  reference  to  a  supposed  Coolie  convention  with 
Great  Britain  is  of  a  character  to  require  the  official  interven 
tion  of  this  Government.  But  I  take  it  for  granted  that,  since 
the  return  of  King  Kalakaua,  you  will  be  able  to  learn  whether 
such  a  convention  is  contemplated ;  and  if,  in  your  opinion, 
there  is  enough  in  the  general  rumors  to  warrant  it,  you  will 
consider  yourself  as  instructed  to  make  formal  inquiry  of  the 
Hawaiian  Government  whether  such  a  project  is  entertained. 

You  say  that  the  proposed  convention  provides  for  a  — 

"  'protector  of  the  coolie  immigrants,'  who  tries  all  cases  of  disputes  arising 
among  the  coolies  themselves,  and,  also,  between  coolies  and  citizens  of  the 
country  where  they  reside;  and  cases  of  appeal  from  his  judgment  go,  not 
to  the  courts  of  the  country,  but  to  the  British  consul  or  diplomatic  repre 
sentative." 

I  do  not  understand  whether  this  is  a  recital  from  some  exist 
ing  convention  or  a  rumor  of  what  the  contemplated  conven 
tion  is  expected  to  be. 

In  the  treaty  between  Great  Britain  and  the  Netherlands 
relative  to  emigration  of  laborers  from  India  to  the  Dutch 
colony  of  Surinam,  signed  in  1870  and  ratified  in  1872  (the 
most  recent  to  which  I  have  been  able  to  refer),  I  find  the 
following  provision :  — 

"XIX.  All  emigrants  within  the  provision  of  this  convention  shall,  in  the 
same  manner  as  other  subjects  of  the  British  Crown,  and  conformably  to 
the  ordinary  rules  of  international  law,  enjoy  in  the  Netherland  colony  the 
right  of  claiming  the  assistance  of  the  British  consular  agent ;  and  no 
obstacle  shall  be  opposed  of  the  laborers  resorting  to  the  consular  agent,  and 
communicating  with  him,  without  prejudice,  however,  to  the  obligations 
arising  out  of  his  engagements." 

Properly  interpreted  and  fairly  applied,  I  do  not  see  any 
reasonable  ground  of  objection  to  this  or  to  a  similar  provision. 
But  a  convention  containing  stipulations  such  as  you  describe 


392  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

would  be  very  different.  To  secure  to  the  coolie  immigrants 
from  India,  who  are  unquestionably  British  subjects,  such  an  ex 
treme  privilege  of  extraterritoriality  would  be  extending  to  them 
advantages  not  possessed  by  the  subjects  of  any  other  power. 
As  Articles  VIII.  and  X.  of  the  treaty  between  the  United 
States  and  the  Hawaiian  Islands  of  1849,  guarantee  to  the  citi 
zens  and  consular  officers  of  the  United  States  the  treatment  of 
the  most  favored  nation  and  a  participation  in  all  privileges 
granted  to  others,  the  United  States  would  have  to  insist  upon 
equal  treatment  for  its  citizens  and  consuls.  It  can  scarcely  be 
doubted  that  other  powers  would  make  the  same  demand. 

A  consideration  of  the  embarrassment  which  such  a  condition 
of  foreign  rights  and  privileges  would  create  for  the  Hawaiian 
Government  would  present  almost  insuperable  difficulties  to 
such  a  convention. 

But  if  negotiations  such  as  you  describe  are  really  in  progress, 
you  will  ask  for  an  interview  with  the  secretary  for  foreign 
affairs  and  make  the  following  representation  of  the  views  of 
the  United  States  :  — 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  has,  with  unvarying 
consistency,  manifested  respect  for  the  independence  of  the 
Hawaiian  Kingdom  and  an  earnest  desire  for  the  welfare  of  its 
people.  It  has  always  felt  and  acted  on  the  conviction  that  the 
possession  of  the  islands  by  a  peaceful  and  prosperous  power, 
with  which  there  was  no  possibility  of  controversy  or  collision, 
was  most  desirable,  in  reference  to  its  own  large  and  rapidly 
increasing  interests  on  the  Pacific.  It  has  declined,  even  at  the 
request  of  the  Hawaiian  people,  to  assume  over  their  affairs  a 
Protectorate,  which  would  only  be  a  thinly  disguised  domination, 
and  it  has  confined  its  efforts  and  influence  to  strengthening 
their  Government  and  opening  to  their  commerce  and  enterprise 
the  readiest  and  most  profitable  connection  with  its  own  mar 
kets.  But  this  policy  has  been  based  upon  our  belief  in  the  real 
and  substantial  independence  of  Hawaii.  The  Government  of 
the  United  States  has  always  avowed  and  now  repeats  that, 
under  no  circumstances,  will  it  permit  the  transfer  of  the  terri 
tory  or  sovereignty  of  these  islands  to  any  of  the  European 
powers.  It  is  needless  to  re-state  the  reasons  upon  which  that 
determination  rests.  It  is  too  obvious  for  argument  that  the 


THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  THE   HAWAIIAN  KINGDOM.    393 

possession  of  these  islands  by  a  great  maritime  Power  would 
not  only  be  a  dangerous  diminution  of  the  just  and  necessary 
influence  of  the  United  States  in  the  waters  of  the  Pacific,  but 
in  case  of  international  difficulty  it  would  be  a  positive  threat 
to  American  interests  too  important  to  be  lightly  risked. 

Neither  can  the  Government  of  the  United  States  allow  an 
arrangement  which,  by  diplomatic  finesse  or  legal  technicality, 
substitutes  for  the  native  and  legitimate  constitutional  Govern 
ment  of  Hawaii,  the  controlling  influence  of  a  Foreign  Power. 
That  is  not  the  real  and  substantial  independence  which  it 
desires  to  see  and  which  it  is  prepared  to  support.  This 
Government  would  consider  a  scheme  by  which  a  large  mass  of 
British  subjects,  forming  in  time  not  improbably  the  majority 
of  its  population,  should  be  introduced  into  Hawaii,  be  made 
independent  of  the  native  Government,  and  be  ruled  by  British 
authorities,  judicial  and  diplomatic,  as  one  entirely  inconsistent 
with  the  friendly  relations  now  existing  between  us,  as  trench 
ing  upon  treaty  rights  which  we  have  secured  by  no  small  con 
sideration,  and  as  certain  to  involve  the  two  countries  in  irritat 
ing  and  unprofitable  discussion. 

In  thus  instructing  you,  however,  I  must  impress  upon  you 
that  much  is  trusted  to  your  discretion.  There  would  be 
neither  propriety  nor  wisdom  in  making  such  declarations  un 
necessarily  or  prematurely.  If,  therefore,  you  find  that  the  pro 
posed  convention  is  not  one  with  the  extreme  provisions  to 
which  you  refer,  or  if  you  have  reason  to  believe  that  your  rep 
resentations  of  the  unfriendly  impression  which  it  would  make 
here  will  be  sufficient  to  change  the  purpose  of  the  Hawaiian 
Government,  you  will  confine  yourself  to  ordinary  diplomatic 
remonstrance.  In  any  event,  it  will  be  prudent  to  indicate 
that  such  would,  in  your  opinion,  be  the  view  taken  by  this 
Government  before  making  the  formal  protest,  which,  under 
the  contingency  of  persistent  adverse  action  on  the  part  of  the 
Hawaiian  Government,  you  are  authorized  to  make. 


394  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

[A  few  days  after  the  foregoing,  Mr.  Elaine  sent  a  supplementary  and  ex 
planatory  dispatch  to  Mr.  Comly,  from  which  the  following  extract  is  taken.  It 
contains  the  essential  part.] 

THE  policy  of  this  country  with  regard  to  the  Pacific  is  the 
natural  complement  to  its  Atlantic  policy.  The  history  of  our 
European  relations  for  fifty  years  shows  the  jealous  concern 
with  which  the  United  States  has  guarded  its  control  of  the 
coast  from  foreign  interference,  and  this  without  extension  of 
territorial  possession  beyond  the  main  land.  Its  aim  has 
always  been  to  preserve  the  friendly  neutrality  of  the  adjacent 
States  and  insular  possessions.  Its  attitude  toward  Cuba  is  in 
point.  That  rich  island,  the  key  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and 
the  field  for  our  most  extended  trade  in  the  Western  Hemi 
sphere,  is,  though  in  the  hands  of  Spain,  a  part  of  the  American 
commercial  system.  Our  relations,  present  and  prospective, 
toward  Cuba,  have  never  been  more  ably  set  forth  than  in  the 
remarkable  note  addressed  by  my  predecessor,  Mr.  Secretary 
Everett,  to  the  ministers  of  Great  Britain  and  France  in  Wash 
ington,  on  the  1st  of  December,  1852,  in  rejection  of  the  sug 
gested  tripartite  alliance  forever  to  determine  the  neutrality  of 
the  Spanish  Antilles.  In  response  to  the  proposal  that  the 
United  States,  Great  Britain,  and  France  should  severally  and 
collectively  agree  to  forbid  the  acquisition  of  control  over  Cuba, 
by  any  or  all  of  them,  Mr.  Everett  showed  that,  without  forcing 
or  even  coveting  possession  of  the  island,  its  condition  was  es 
sentially  an  American  question  ;  that  the  renunciation  forever 
by  this  Government  of  contingent  interest  therein  would  be  far 
broader  than  the  like  renunciation  by  Great  Britain  or  France ; 
that  if  ever  ceasing  to  be  Spanish,  Cuba  must  necessarily  be 
come  American,  and  not  fall  under  any  other  European  domi 
nation,  and  that  the  ceaseless  movement  of  segregation  of 
American  interests  from  European  control  and  unification  in  a 
broader  American  sphere  of  independent  life  could  not  and 
should  not  be  checked  by  any  arbitrary  agreement. 

Nearly  thirty  years  have  demonstrated  the  wisdom  of  the 
attitude  then  maintained  by  Mr.  Everett  and  have  made  indis 
pensable  its  continuance  and  its  extension  to  all  parts  of  the 
American  Atlantic  system  where  a  disturbance  of  the  existing 
status  might  be  attempted  in  the  interest  of  foreign  Powers. 


THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  THE  HAWAIIAN  KINGDOM.    395 

The  present  attitude  of  this  Government  toward  any  European 
project  for  the  control  of  an  Isthmian  route  is  but  the  logical 
sequence  of  the  resistance  made  in  1852  to  the  attempted 
pressure  of  an  active  foreign  influence  in  the  West  Indies. 

Hawaii,  although  much  farther  from  the  Californian  coast 
than  is  Cuba  from  the  Floridian  peninsula,  holds  in  the  western 
sea  much  the  same  position  as  Cuba  in  the  Atlantic.  It  is  the 
key  to  the  maritime  dominion  of  the  Pacific  States,  as  Cuba  is 
the  key  to  the  Gulf  trade.  The  material  possession  of  Hawaii 
is  not  desired  by  the  United  States  any  more  than  was  that  of 
Cuba.  But  under  no  circumstances  can  the  United  States  per 
mit  any  change  in  the  territorial  control  of  either  which  would 
cut  it  adrift  from  the  American  system,  whereto  they  both 
indispensably  belong. 

In  this  aspect  of  the  question,  it  is  readily  seen  with  what 
concern  this  Government  must  view  any  tendency  toward  in 
troducing  into  Hawaii  new  social  elements,  destructive  of  its 
necessarily  American  character.  The  steady  diminution  of  the 
native  population  of  the  islands,  amounting  to  some  ten  per 
cent  between  1872  and  1878,  and  still  continuing,  is  doubtless 
a  cause  of  great  alarm  to  the  Government  of  the  kingdom,  and 
it  is  no  wonder  that  a  solution  should  be  sought  with  eagerness 
in  any  apparently  practicable  quarter.  The  problem,  however, 
is  not  to  be  met  by  a  substitution  of  Mongolian  supremacy  for 
native  control  —  as  seems  at  first  sight  possible  through  the 
rapid  increase  in  Chinese  immigration  to  the  islands.  Neither 
is  a  wholesale  introduction  of  the  coolie  element,  professedly 
Anglo-Indian,  likely  to  afford  any  more  satisfactory  outcome  to 
the  difficulty.  The  Hawaiian  Islands  cannot  be  joined  to  the 
Asiatic  system.  If  they  drift  from  their  independent  station  it 
must  be  toward  assimilation  and  identification  with  the  Ameri 
can  system,  to  which  they  belong  by  the  operation  of  natural 
laws,  and  must  belong  by  the  operation  of  political  necessity. 

I  have  deemed  it  necessary  to  go,  with  somewhat  of  detail, 
into  the  real  nature  of  our  relations  toward  Hawaii,  in  order 
that  you  may  intelligently  construe  my  recent  instructions  in 
the  light  of  our  true  and  necessary  policy  on  the  Pacific.  It 
may  also  tend  to  simplify  your  intercourse  with  the  native  Gov 
ernment  if  you  are  in  a  position  to  disabuse  the  minds  of  its 


396  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

statesmen  of  any  belief  or  impression  that  our  course  is  selfishly 
intrusive,  or  looks  merely  to  the  exclusive  retention  of  tran 
sient  advantages  of  local  commerce,  in  which  other  countries 
seek  a  share.  The  United  States  was  one  of  the  first  among 
the  great  nations  of  the  world  to  take  an  active  interest  in  the 
upbuilding  of  Hawaiian  independence  and  the  creation  of  a  new 
and  potential  life  for  its  people.  It  has  consistently  endeavored, 
and  with  success,  to  enlarge  the  material  prosperity  of  Hawaii 
on  an  independent  basis.  It  proposes  to  be  equally  unremit 
ting  in  its  efforts  hereafter  to  maintain  and  develop  the  advan 
tages  which  have  accrued  to  Hawaii  and  to  draw  closer  the  ties 
which  imperatively  unite  it  to  the  great  body  of  American 
commonwealths. 

In  this  line  of  action  the  United  States  does  its  simple  duty 
both  to  Hawaii  and  itself;  and  it  cannot  permit  such  obvious 
neglect  of  National  interest  as  would  be  involved  by  silent 
acquiescence  in  any  movement  looking  to  a  lessening  of  those 
American  ties  and  the  substitution  of  alien  and  hostile  interests. 
It  firmly  believes  that  the  position  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  as 
the  key  to  the  dominion  of  the  American  Pacific  demands  their 
neutrality,  to  which  end  it  will  earnestly  co-operate  with  the 
native  Government.  If,  through  any  cause,  the  maintenance 
of  such  a  position  of  neutrality  should  be  found  by  Hawaii  to 
be  impracticable,  this  Government  would  then  unhesitatingly 
meet  the  altered  situation  by  seeking  an  avowedly  American 
solution  for  the  grave  issues  presented. 

The  communication  to  the  Hawaiian  Government  of  the 
views  herein  expressed  is  left,  both  as  to  manner  and  extent,  to 
your  own  discretion.  If  the  treaty  relations  with  Great  Britain, 
of  which  my  last  instruction  treats,  prove  to  be  of  such  a  nature 
as  to  require  the  communication  of  a  formal  protest  to  the 
Hawaiian  minister  of  Foreign  affairs,  it  would  probably  be  wise 
for  you  to  give  him  a  copy  of  this  dispatch  as  a  just  and  tem 
perate  exposition  of  the  intentions  of  this  Government,  and  a 
succinct  explanation  of  the  reasons  which  have  induced  such 
a  protest. 


ASSASSINATION  OF  ALEXANDER  III.  OF  RUSSIA.     397 


ASSASSINATION    OF  ALEXANDER   III.,  EMPEROR 
OF    RUSSIA. 


[Secretary  Elaine  to  Honorable  John  W.  Foster,  Minister  to  Russia.] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  April  13, 1881. 

SIR,  —  Your  dispatch  of  the  18th  ultimo,  enclosing  a  communi 
cation  from  the  Russian  Minister  of  Foreign  affairs  in  response 
to  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  touching 
the  death  of  the  late  Emperor,  has  been  received,  and  by  order 
of  the  President  laid  before  the  Senate. 

The  President  desires,  more  fully  than  in  his  communication 
by  telegraph,  to  convey  to  the  Emperor  the  sentiments  of 
respect  and  gratitude  toward  his  father  which  animate  the 
Government  and  people  of  the  United  States.  They  can  never 
forget  the  course  pursued  by  the  late  Emperor  toward  this 
country  when  our  National  existence  was  imperiled  by  civil 
strife.  The  peculiar  danger  to  which  we  were  exposed  from 
the  intervention  of  European  Powers  was  clearly  perceived  by 
all  the  intelligent  friends  of  the  Union.  Though  feeling  equal 
to  any  emergency  that  might  arise  in  the  course  of  the  appall 
ing  conflict,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  realized  that 
the  contest  would  be  rendered  more  desperate  and  more  bloody 
if  any  of  the  great  Powers  of  Europe  should  espouse  the  cause 
of  the  insurrectionary  States. 

A  dynasty,  not  now  in  power,  but  then  ruling  over  a  country 
in  which  the  people  have  always  been  our  friends,  had  resolved 
upon  intervention  if  co-operation  with  other  nations  could  be 
secured.  This  design,  so  fraught  with  danger  to  liberty  and 
constitutional  government  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  was 
promptly  met  by  the  late  Emperor  with  a  refusal  to  take  any 


398  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

unfriendly  step  against  the  United  States.  Nor  did  his  Imperial 
Majesty  stop  at  merely  declining  to  join  a  coalition  adverse  to 
us ;  he  openly  declared  in  our  favor,  and  fearing,  from  what  he 
knew  of  designs  against  us,  that  other  Powers  might  unwarily 
be  drawn  into  a  hostile  attitude  towards  this  country,  the 
Emperor  sent  to  the  waters  which  both  expose  and  protect  our 
National  Capital  a  large  and  powerful  fleet  of  war-vessels  as  a 
proclamation  to  the  world  of  his  sympathy  in  our  struggle  and 
of  his  readiness  to  strike  a  blow  on  the  side  of  the  Union  if  any 
Foreign  Power  should  strike  a  blow  in  aid  of  the  insurrection. 

In  our  happily  re-united  country,  now  contented  and  pros 
perous  throughout  all  its  borders,  those  who  upheld  the  Union 
and  those  who  were  arrayed  against  it  join  in  equal  gratitude 
to  the  Emperor  who  aided  in  saving  all  our  people  from  the 
embarrassment  and  danger  of  foreign  intervention. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  does  not  recall  these 
historical  facts  from  a  desire  to  awaken  unpleasant  recollections 
in  any  breast,  but  as  a  tribute  to  the  memory  of  a  Sovereign 
whose  great  power,  at  a  most  important  crisis,  was  exerted  on 
the  side  of  our  Union,  even  at  the  risk  of  plunging  his  own 
Empire  into  war. 

The  President  requests  that  you  will  seek  an  audience  with 
the  Emperor  and  communicate  these  expressions  of  regard 
which  the  people  of  the  United  States  have  entertained  for  his 
father.  Assure  the  Emperor  that  the  Government  and  people 
of  this  country  abhor  assassination,  and  can  never  see  in  it  a 
remedy  for  political  evils.  There  is  no  instance  in  history 
where  an  abuse  has  been  corrected,  a  wrong  righted,  an  oppres 
sion  ameliorated,  or  a  reform  promoted,  by  assassination.  The 
people  of  the  United  States  have  too  fresh  a  recollection  of  a 
similar  crime  at  home,  and  they  know  too  well  that  assassina 
tion  always  strikes  wildly  and  blindly,  willfully  and  wickedly. 

Congratulate  the  Emperor  upon  his  accession  to  the  throne, 
and,  on  behalf  of  the  Government  and  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  extend  to  him  the  heartiest  wishes  for  his  success  as  a 
Sovereign,  and  for  the  prosperity  and  happiness  of  the  Russian 
people. 


BARON  STEUBEN'S  FAMILY  AT  YORKTOWN.          399 


BARON    STEUBEN'S    FAMILY    AT    YORKTOWN. 


[Dispatch  from  Secretary  Blaine  to  Honorable  Andrew  D.  White,  United 
States  Minister  to  Germany.] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  July  30,  1881. 

SIR,  —  During  the  darkest  period  of  the  Revolutionary  war 
a  German  soldier  of  character  and  distinction  tendered  his 
sword  in  aid  of  American  independence.  Frederick  William 
Augustus,  Baron  Steuben,  joined  Washington  at  Valley  Forge, 
in  the  memorable  and  disastrous  winter  of  1778.  He  attested 
the  sincerity  of  his  attachment  to  the  patriot  cause  b}7  espousing 
it  when  its  fortunes  were  adverse,  its  prospects  gloomy,  and  its 
hopes,  but  for  the  intense  zeal  of  the  people,  well-nigh  crushed. 

Baron  Steuben  was  cordially  welcomed  by  Washington,  and 
immediately  placed  on  duty  as  Inspector-General  of  the  army. 
A  detailed  history  of  his  military  career  in  America  would 
form  an  epitome  of  the  Revolutionary  struggle.  He  had  served 
in  the  Seven  Years'  War  on  the  staff  of  the  great  Frederick, 
and  had  acquired  in  the  campaigns  of  that  master  of  military 
science  a  skill  and  experience  sorely  needed  by  the  untrained 
soldiers  of  the  Continental  army.  The  discipline  and  effec 
tive  organization  which,  under  the  commanding  patronage  of 
Washington,  were  at  once  imparted  to  the  American  army  by 
the  zeal  and  diligence  of  Steuben  transformed  the  volunteers 
and  raw  levies  into  veterans,  who  successfully  met  the  British 
regulars  in  all  the  campaigns  of  that  prolonged  struggle. 

The  final  surrender  of  the  British  army  under  Lord  Corn- 
wallis  occurred  at  Yorktown,  Va.,  on  the  nineteenth  day  of 
October,  1781.  Baron  Steuben  bore  a  conspicuous  part  in  the 
arduous  campaign  which  ended  so  auspiciously  for  the  Conti 
nental  army,  and  it  fell  to  his  lot  to  receive  the  first  official 


400  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

notification  of  the  proposed  capitulation,  and  to  bear  it  to  the 
illustrious  Commander-in-chief. 

The  Centennial  of  that  great  event  in  American  history  is  to 
be  celebrated  with  appropriate  observances  and  ceremonies  on 
the  approaching  anniversary.  I  am  directed  by  the  President 
to  tender,  through  you,  an  invitation  to  the  representatives  of 
Baron  Steuben's  family  in  Germany  to  attend  the  celebration 
as  guests  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  You  will 
communicate  the  invitation  through  the  Imperial  minister  of 
foreign  affairs,  and  will  express  to  him  the  very  earnest  desire 
of  this  Government  that  it  shall  be  accepted. 

Those  who  come  as  the  representatives  of  Baron  Steuben's 
family  will  be  assured  of  as  warm  a  welcome  in  our  day  of  peace 
and  prosperity  as  was  given  to  their  illustrious  kinsman  in 
the  dark  days  of  adversity  and  war.  They  will  be  the  honored 
guests  of  fifty  millions  of  Americans,  a  vast  number  of  whom 
have  German  blood  in  their  veins  and  constitute  one  of  the 
most  worthy  and  valuable  elements  that  make  up  the  strength 
of  the  Republic.  Intensely  devoted,  with  patriotic  fidelity,  to 
America,  they  yet  retain,  cherish  and  transmit  the  most  affec 
tionate  memory  of  Fatherland.  To  these  the  visit  of  Baron 
Steuben's  relatives  will  have  something  of  the  revival  of  family 
ties,  while  to  all  Americans,  of  whatever  origin,  the  presence  of 
German  guests  will  afford  fitting  opportunity  of  testifying  their 
respect  for  that  great  country  within  whose  imperial  limits  are 
included  so  much  of  human  grandeur  and  human  progress. 


JOINT  INTERVENTION  IN  SOUTH  AMERICAN  WAR.     401 


FRANCE    PROPOSES    JOINT    INTERVENTION    IN 
THE    SOUTH    AMERICAN    WAR. 


[Secretary  Elaine  to  Honorable  L.  P.  Morton,  Minister  to  France.] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  Sept.  5,  1881. 

SIR, — I  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  dispatch  of  Aug. 
11,  1881,  giving  an  account  of  your  interview  on  the  day  pre 
vious  with  the  President  of  the  Republic  in  regard  to  the  atti 
tude  and  correspondent  relations  of  France,  Great  Britain,  and 
the  United  States  with  the  South  American  States,  Chili  and 
Peru. 

The  suggestions  offered  by  President  Grevy  concerning  the 
situation  of  affairs  in  Peru  have  received  the  respectful  consid 
eration  due  to  the  utterances  of  so  eminent  a  statesman.  This 
Government  agrees  with  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  France  in 
profoundly  deploring  the  disorders  and  sufferings  which  have 
already  fallen  upon,  and  those  which  still  impend  over  the 
people  of  Peru,  and  fully  shares  the  humane  and  enlightened 
sentiments  which  have  inspired  in  him  a  personal  interest  in 
that  unfortunate  struggle,  and  have  induced  him  to  suggest  a 
concerted  effort  by  France,  Great  Britain,  and  the  United  States 
to  bring  the  conflict  to  an  end. 

Interventions  of  this  character  have  been  frequent  in  the 
diplomatic  history  of  Europe  and  have  been  sometimes  followed 
by  beneficial  results  in  preserving  the  equilibrium  of  the 
Powers.  But  the  United  States  has  not  belonged  to  that 
system  of  States,  of  which  France  and  Great  Britain  are  im 
portant  members,  and  has  never  participated  in  the  adjustment 
of  their  contentions.  Neither  interest  nor  inclination  leads  this, 
country  to  desire  a  voice  in  the  discussion  of  those  questions. 


402  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

Our  relations  to  the  States  of  the  American  continent,  however, 
are  widely  different,  and  the  situation  is  so  nearly  reversed,  that 
this  Government,  while  appreciating  the  disinterested  motive 
that  inspired  the  suggestion,  is  constrained  gravely  to  doubt  the 
expediency  of  a  joint  intervention  with  European  powers  in 
the  affairs  of  American  States,  either  by  material  pressure  or  by 
moral  or  political  influence.  These  Republics  of  America  are 
younger  sisters  of  this  Government.  Their  proximity  of  situa 
tion,  similarity  in  origin  and  frame  of  Government,  unity  of 
political  interest  on  all  questions  of  foreign  intercourse,  and 
their  geographical  remoteness  from  Europe  have  naturally  given 
to  American  States  close  and  especial  relations  to  each  other, 
and  in  the  course  of  time  removed  them  farther  from  the  Euro 
pean  system. 

The  commercial  and  political  interests  of  the  United  States 
on  this  continent,  transcend  in  extent  and  importance  those  of 
any  other  Power,  and  where  these  interests  are  deeply  involved 
this  Government  must  preserve  a  position  in  which  its  influence 
will  be  most  independent  and  most  efficient.  The  United 
States  has  watched  the  progress  of  the  struggle  between  Peru 
and  Chili  with  constant  anxiety,  and  has  endeavored,  as  oppor 
tunity  offered,  to  arrange  terms  of  peace.  While  the  interest 
which  President  Gre*vy  has  manifested  for  the  cause  of  peace, 
and  the  sympathy  he  has  shown  with  the  unhappy  victims  of 
this  war,  find  an  earnest  response  here,  both  from  the  Govern 
ment  and  the  people,  the  United  States  must  decline  to  enter 
into  negotiations  with  European  powers  for  a  joint  intervention 
in  the  affairs  of  Chili  and  Peru.  You  will  communicate  this 
conclusion  to  the  French  Government. 


PROPOSED  PEACE  CONGRESS  OF  AMERICAN  STATES.     403 


PROPOSED    PEACE    CONGRESS    OF    AMERICAN 

STATES. 


[The  project  of  a  Peace  Congress  of  American  Nations  was  originally  ap 
proved  by  President  Garfield.  After  his  death  President  Arthur  directed  that 
the  invitations  be  issued.  The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  invitation  sent  to  the 
Argentine  Republic.  A  similar  letter  was  sent  to  the  other  Independent  Gov 
ernments  of  North  and  South  America.] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

WASHINGTON,  Nov.  29,  1881. 

Sm,  —  The  attitude  of  the  United  States  with  respect  to  the 
question  of  general  peace  011  the  American  continent  is  well 
known  through  its  persistent  efforts  for  years  past  to  avert  the 
evils  of  warfare,  or,  these  efforts  failing,  to  bring  positive  con 
flicts  to  an  end  through  pacific  counsels  or  the  advocacy  of 
impartial  arbitration. 

This  attitude  has  been  consistently  maintained,  and  always 
with  such  fairness  as  to  leave  no  room  for  imputing  to  our 
Government  any  motive  except  the  humane  and  disinterested 
one  of  saving  the  kindred  States  of  America  from  the  bur 
dens  of  war.  The  position  of  the  United  States  as  the  lead 
ing  Power  of  the  New  World  might  well  give  to  its  Govern 
ment  a  claim  to  authoritative  utterance  for  the  purpose  of 
quieting  discord  among  its  neighbors,  with  all  of  whom  the 
most  friendly  relations  exist.  Nevertheless,  the  good  offices  of 
this  Government  are  not  and  have  not  at  any  time  been  ten 
dered  with  a  show  of  dictation  or  compulsion,  but  only  as 
exhibiting  the  solicitous  good  will  of  a  common  friend. 

For  some  years  past  a  growing  disposition  has  been  mani 
fested  by  certain  States  of  Central  and  South  America  to  refer 
disputes  affecting  grave  questions  of  international  relationship 
and  boundaries  to  arbitration  rather  than  to  the  sword.  It  has 
been  on  several  such  occasions  a  source  of  profound  satisfaction 


404  DIPLOMATIC   CORRESPONDENCE. 

to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  see  that  this  country 
is  in  a  large  measure  looked  to  by  all  the  American  Powers  as 
their  friend  and  mediator.  The  just  and  impartial  counsel  of  the 
President  in  such  cases  has  never  been  withheld,  and  his  efforts 
have  been  rewarded  by  the  prevention  of  sanguinary  strife  or 
angry  contentions  between  peoples  whom  we  regard  as  brethren. 

The  existence  of  this  growing  tendency  convinces  the  Presi 
dent  that  the  time  is  ripe  for  a  proposal  that  shall  enlist  the  good 
will  and  active  co-operation  of  all  the  States  of  the  Western 
Hemisphere,  both  north  and  south,  in  the  interest  of  humanity 
and  for  the  common  weal  of  nations.  He  conceives  that  none 
of  the  Governments  of  America  can  be  less  alive  than  our  own 
to  the  dangers  and  horrors  of  a  state  of  war,  and  especially  of 
war  between  kinsmen.  He  is  sure  that  none  of  the  Chiefs 
of  Governments  on  the  continent  can  be  less  sensitive  than  he 
is  to  the  sacred  duty  of  making  every  endeavor  to  do  away 
with  the  chances  of  fratricidal  strife.  He  looks  with  hopeful 
confidence  to  such  active  assistance  from  them  as  will  serve  to 
show  the  broadness  of  our  common  humanity  and  the  strength 
of  the  ties  which  bind  us  all  together  as  a  harmonious  system 
of  American  commonwealths. 

Impressed  with  these  views,  the  President  extends  to  all  the 
independent  countries  of  North  and  South  America  an  earnest 
invitation  to  participate  in  a  General  Congress  to  be  held  in 
the  city  of  Washington  on  the  twenty-fourth  day  of  November, 
1882,  for  the  purpose  of  considering  and  discussing  the  methods 
of  preventing  war  between  the  nations  of  America.  He  desires 
that  the  attention  of  the  Congress  shall  be  strictly  confined  to 
this  one  great  object ;  that  its  sole  aim  shall  be  to  seek  a  way 
of  permanently  averting  the  horrors  of  cruel  and  bloody  combat 
between  countries,  oftenest  of  one  blood  and  speech,  or  the 
even  worse  calamity  of  internal  commotion  and  civil  strife  ; 
that  it  shall  regard  the  burdensome  and  far-reaching  conse 
quences  of  such  struggles  ;  exhausted  finances,  oppressive  debt, 
onerous  taxation,  ruined  cities,  paralyzed  industries,  devastated 
fields,  ruthless  conscription,  the  slaughter  of  men,  the  grief  of 
the  widow  and  the  orphan;  —  with  a  legacy  of  embittered  resent 
ments,  that  long  survive  those  who  provoked  them  and  heavily 
afflict  the  innocent  generations  that  come  after. 


PROPOSED  PEACE  CONGRESS  OF  AMERICAN  STATES.     405 

The  President  is  especially  desirous  to  have  it  understood 
that,  in  putting  forth  this  invitation,  the  United  States  does  not 
assume  the  position  of  counseling,  or  attempting  to  counsel, 
through  the  voice  of  the  Congress,  any  determinate  solution  of 
existing  questions  which  may  now  divide  any  of  the  countries 
of  America.  Such  questions  cannot  properly  come  before  the 
Congress.  Its  mission  is  higher.  It  is  to  provide  for  the  inter 
ests  of  all  in  the  future,  not  to  settle  the  individual  differences 
of  the  present.  For  this  reason  especially  the  President  has 
indicated  a  day  for  the  assembling  of  the  Congress  so  far  in  the 
future  as  to  leave  good  ground  for  hope  that  by  the  time  named 
the  present  situation  on  the  South  Pacific  coast  will  be  happily 
terminated,  and  that  those  engaged  in  the  contest  may  take 
peaceable  part  in  the  discussion  and  solution  of  the  general 
question  affecting  in  an  equal  degree  the  well-being  of  all. 

It  seems  also  desirable  to  disclaim  in  advance  any  purpose  on 
the  part  of  the  United  States  to  prejudge  the  issues  to  be  pre 
sented  to  the  Congress.  It  is  far  from  the  intent  of  this  Gov 
ernment  to  appear  before  the  Congress  as  in  any  sense  the  pro 
tector  of  its  neighbors  or  the  predestined  and  necessary  arbi 
trator  of  their  disputes.  The  United  States  will  enter  into  the 
deliberations  of  the  Congress  on  the  same  footing  as  the  other 
Powers  represented,  and  with  the  loyal  determination  to  ap 
proach  any  proposed  solution,  not  merely  in  its  own  interest,  or 
with  a  view  to  asserting  its  own  power,  but  as  a  single  member 
among  many  co-ordinate  and  co-equal  States.  So  far  as  the 
influence  of  this  Government  may  be  potential,  it  will  be 
exerted  in  the  direction  of  conciliating  whatever  conflicting 
interests  of  blood,  or  government,  or  historical  tradition  may 
necessarily  come  together  in  response  to  a  call  embracing 
elements  so  vast  and  diverse. 

You  will  present  these  views  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign  rela 
tions  of  the  Argentine  Republic,  enlarging,  if  need  be,  in  such 
terms  as  will  readily  occur  to  you,  upon  the  great  mission 
which  it  is  within  the  power  of  the  proposed  Congress  to  accom 
plish  in  the  interest  of  humanity,  and  upon  the  firm  purpose 
of  the  United  States  to  maintain  a  position  of  the  most  absolute 
and  impartial  friendship  towards  all.  You  will  thereupon,  in 
the  name  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  tender  to  His 


406  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE. 

Excellency  the  President  of  the  Argentine  Republic  a  formal 
invitation  to  send  two  commissioners  to  the  Congress,  provided 
with  such  powers  and  instructions  on  behalf  of  their  Govern 
ment  as  will  enable  them  to  consider  the  questions  brought 
before  that  body  within  the  limit  of  submission  contemplated 
by  this  invitation.  The  United  States,  as  well  as  the  other 
Powers,  will,  in  like  manner,  be  represented  by  two  commis 
sioners,  so  that  equality  and  impartiality  will  be  amply  secured 
in  the  proceedings  of  the  Congress. 

In  delivering  this  invitation  through  the  Minister  of  foreign' 
affairs,  you  will  read  this  dispatch  to  him  and  leave  with  him  a 
copy,  intimating  that  an  answer  is  desired  by  this  Government 
as  promptly  as  the  just  consideration  of  so  important  a  proposi 
tion  will  permit. 

NOTE.  —  The  invitation  for  a  Congress  of  American  Nations  was  practically 
cancelled  by  Secretary  Frelinghuysen  on  the  9th  of  January,  1882,  some  six  weeks 
after  it  was  issued.  The  formal  withdrawal  of  the  invitation  was  some  months 
later. 

But  before  the  intelligence  of  Secretary  Frelinghuysen's  action  reached  the 
Nations  invited,  half  of  them  and  by  far  the  most  populous  half,  had  cordially 
accepted  the  invitation. 

Mexico  in  accepting  said,  "The  attitude  which  the  "Washington  Government 
has  assumed  in  this  humanitarian  enterprise  is  entitled  to  the  eulogy  of  the  entire 
world  and  to  the  most  favorable  consideration  of  the  nations  immediately  inter 
ested  therein." 

The  five  States  of  Central  America  accepted  the  invitation.  Costa  Rica  "  ex 
pressed  enthusiasm  upon  the  subject."  When  the  invitation  was  withdrawn, 
Guatemala  "expressed  great  regret  that  a  project  of  such  vital  importance  to 
the  Central  American  States  should  have  failed  even  temporarily  and  hoped  it 
would  be  revived  at  no  distant  day." 

Venezuela  accepted  promptly.  "  It  is  certainly,"  said  the  distinguished  Presi 
dent  Guzman  Blancd,  "  a  source  of  satisfaction  that  the  first  Republic  of  the 
world,  loyal  to  her  noble  antecedents,  should  consent  to  preside  over  the  deliber 
ations  of  a  Peace  Congress  that  proposes  to  devise  means  of  ending  future  dis 
agreements  in  America  without  any  appeal  to  arms  with  its  terrible  legacies." 

"The  Government  of  Brazil,"  so  wrote  our  Minister,  Mr.  Osborn,  "has  ac 
cepted  the  invitation  to  the  Peace  Congress,  and  I  am  not  without  reasons  for 
knowing  that  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  looks  forward  to  the  assembling  of  the 
Congress  with  interest  and  hopes  that  great  good  will  result  therefrom." 

When  intelligence  of  the  withdrawal  of  the  invitation  reached  Rio  Janeiro* 
some  of  the  Emperor's  Ministers  disclosed  their  hostility  to  the  Peace  Congress. 
Mr.  Osborn  intimates  that  these  ministers  were  acting  in  accordance  with 
"  European  influence." 

The  Governments  not  heard  from  when  the  invitation  was  withdrawn  are 
Colombia,  Peru,  Chili,  Argentine  Confederation,  Uruguay,  and  Paraguay. 


POLITICAL    DISCUSSIONS. 


WITHDRAWAL    OF    INVITATIONS    TO    A    PEACE 

CONGRESS. 


[The  following  letter  was  sent  to  President  Arthur,  Feb.  3,  1882,  by  ex- 
Secretary  Elaine :  — ] 

To  THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  :  —  The  sug 
gestion  that  a  Congress  of  all  American  nations  should  assemble 
in  the  city  of  Washington  for  the  purpose  of  agreeing  on  such  a 
basis  of  arbitration  for  International  troubles  as  would  remove 
all  possibility  of  war  in  the  Western  Hemisphere,  was  warmly 
approved  by  your  predecessor.  His  assassination  on  the  2d  of 
last  July  necessarily  suspended  all  action  on  the  part  of  the 
Government.  After  your  accession  to  the  Presidency  I  ac 
quainted  you  with  the  project,  and  submitted  to  you  a  draft  for 
the  invitation.  You  received  the  suggestion  with  appreciative 
consideration,  and,  after  carefully  examining  the  form  of  invi 
tation,  directed  it  to  be  sent.  It  was  accordingly  dispatched  in 
November  to  the  independent  Governments  of  America,  North 
and  South,  including  all,  from  the  Empire  of  Brazil  to  the 
smallest  republic.  In  a  communication,  recently  sent  to  the 
Senate,  addressed  by  the  present  Secretary  of  State  the  9th  of 
last  month  to  Mr.  Trescott,  now  on  a  special  mission  to  Peru 
and  Chili,  I  was  greatly  surprised  to  find  a  proposition  looking 
to  the  annulment  of  these  invitations,  and  I  was  still  more 
surprised  when  I  read  the  reasons  assigned.  I  quote  Mr. 
Frelinghuysen's  language :  — 

"  The  United  States  is  at  peace  with  all  nations  of  the  earth,  and  the 
President  wishes  hereafter  to  determine  whether  it  will  conduce  to  the  gen 
eral  peace,  which  he  would  cherish  and  promote,  for  this  Government  to 
enter  into  negotiations  and  consultation  for  the  promotion  of  peace  with 
selected  friendly  nationalities  without  extending  the  line  of  confidence  to 

407 


408  POLITICAL    DISCUSSIONS. 

other  people  with  whom  the  United  States  is  on  equally  friendly  terms.  If 
such  partial  confidence  would  create  jealousy  and  ill  will,  peace,  the  object 
sought  by  such  consultation,  would  not  be  promoted.  The  principles  con 
trolling  the  relations  of  the  republics  of  this  hemisphere  with  other  nation 
alities  may,  on  investigation,  be  found  to  be  so  well  established  that  little 
would  be  gained  at  this  time  by  re-opening  the  subject,  which  is  not  novel." 

If  I  correctly  apprehend  the  meaning  of  these  words,  it  is 
that  we  might  offend  some  European  powers  if  we  should  hold 
in  the  United  States  a  Congress  of  "  selected  nationalities  "  of 
America.  This  is  certainly  a  new  position  for  the  United  States 
and  one  which  I  earnestly  beg  you  will  not  permit  this  Gov 
ernment  to  assume.  European  Powers  assemble  in  Congress 
whenever  an  object  seems  to  them  of  sufficient  gravity  to  jus 
tify  it.  I  have  never  heard  of  their  consulting  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  in  regard  to  the  propriety  of  their  so 
assembling,  nor  have  I  ever  known  of  their  inviting  an  Ameri 
can  representative  to  be  present,  nor  would  there  in  my  opin 
ion  be  any  good  reason  for  their  so  doing.  Two  Presidents 
of  the  United  States  in  the  year  1881  adjudged  it  to  be  expedi 
ent  that  American  Powers  should  meet  in  Congress  for  the  sole 
purpose  of  agreeing  upon  some  basis  for  arbitration  of  differ 
ences  that  may  arise  between  them,  and  for  the  prevention,  as 
far  as  possible,  of  wars  in  the  future.  If  that  movement  is  now 
to  be  arrested  for  fear  it  may  give  offense  in  Europe,  the  volun 
tary  humiliation  of  the  United  States  could  not  be  more  com 
plete,  unless  we  should  petition  European  Governments  for  the 
privilege  of  holding  the  Congress. 

It  is  difficult  to  see  how  this  country  could  be  placed  in 
a  less  enviable  position  than  would  be  secured  by  sending  in 
November  a  cordial  invitation  to  all  the  Independent  Nations 
in  America  to  meet  in  Washington  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
devising  measures  of  peace,  and  in  January  recalling  the 
invitation  for  fear  it  might  create  "jealousy  and  ill  will "  on  the 
part  of  monarchical  governments  in  Europe.  It  would  be  dif 
ficult  to  devise  a  more  effective  way  for  the  United  States 
to  lose  the  friendship  of  its  American  neighbors,  and  it 
would  certainly  not  add  to  our  prestige  in  the  European  world. 
Nor  can  I  see,  Mr.  President,  how  European  Governments 
should  feel  "  jealousy  and  ill  will  "  toward  the  United  States 
because  of  an  effort  on  its  part  to  assure  lasting  peace  between 


WITHDRAWAL  OF  INVITATIONS  TO  PEACE  CONGRESS.    409 

the  nations  of  America,  unless  indeed  it  be  the  interest  of  the 
European  Powers  that  the  American  nations  should  at  intervals 
fall  into  war,  and  bring  reproach  on  Republican  institutions. 
But  from  that  very  circumstance  I  see  an  additional  and  power 
ful  motive  for  American  Governments  to  be  at  peace  among 
themselves.  The  United  States  is  indeed  at  peace  with  all  the 
world,  as  Mr.  Frelinghuysen  well  says ;  but  there  are,  and  have 
been,  serious  troubles  between  other  American  republics.  Peru, 
Chili  and  Bolivia  have  been  for  more  than  two  years  engaged  in 
a  desperate  conflict.  It  was  the  fortunate  intervention  of  the 
United  States  last  spring  that  averted  war  between  Chili  and 
the  Argentine  Republic.  Guatemala  is  at  this  moment  asking 
the  United  States  to  interpose  its  good  offices  with  Mexico  to 
keep  off  war. 

These  important  facts  were  all  communicated  in  your  late 
message  to  Congress.  It  was  the  existence  or  menace  of  these 
wars  that  influenced  President  Garfield,  and,  as  I  supposed, 
influenced  yourself,  to  desire  a  friendly  conference  of  all  the 
nations  of  America  to  devise  methods  of  permanent  peace  and 
consequent  prosperity  for  all.  Shall  the  United  States  now 
turn  back,  hold  aloof,  and  refuse  to  exert  its  great  moral  power 
for  the  advantage  of  its  weaker  neighbors?  If  you  have  not 
formally  recalled  the  invitation  to  a  Peace  Congress,  Mr.  Presi 
dent,  I  beg  you  to  consider  well  the  effect  of  so  doing.  The 
invitation  was  not  mine.  It  was  yours.  I  performed  only  the 
part  of  Secretary  of  State  to  advise,  and  to  draft.  You  spoke  in 
the  name  of  the  United  States  to  each  of  the  independent  nations 
of  America.  To  revoke  that  invitation  for  any  cause  would  be 
embarrassing;  to  revoke  it  for  avowed  fear  of  "jealousy  and 
ill  will "  on  the  part  of  European  Powers  would  appeal  as  little 
to  American  pride  as  to  American  hospitality.  Those  you  have 
invited  may  decline,  and,  having  now  cause  to  doubt  their  wel 
come,  will  perhaps  do  so.  This  would  break  up  the  Congress, 
but  it  would  not  touch  our  dignity. 

Beyond  the  philanthropic  and  Christian  ends  to  be  obtained 
by  the  American  conference,  devoted  to  peace  and  good  will 
among  men,  we  might  well  hope  for  material  advantages  as  a 
result  of  a  better  understanding  and  closer  friendship  with  the 
nations  of  America.  At  present  the  condition  of  trade  between 


410  POLITICAL    DISCUSSIONS. 

the  United  States  and  its  American  neighbors  is  unsatisfactory 
to  us,  and  even  deplorable.  According  to  the  official  statistics 
of  our  own  Treasury  Department  the  balance  against  us  in 
American  trade  last  year  was  $120,000,000  in  coin  —  a  sum 
greater  than  the  yearly  product  of  the  gold  and  silver  mines  in 
the  United  States.  This  large  balance  was  paid  by  us  in  foreign 
exchange,  and  a  very  large  proportion  of  it  went  to  England, 
where  shipments  of  cotton,  provisions,  and  breadstuffs  supplied 
the  money.  If  any  thing  should  change  or  check  the  balance  in 
our  favor  in  European  trade,  our  commercial  exchanges  with 
Spanish  America  would  drain  us  of  our  reserve  of  gold  coin  at 
a  rate  exceeding  8100,000,000  per  annum,  and  might  precipitate 
the  suspension  of  specie  payment  in  this  country.  Such  a 
result  at  home  would  be  worse  than  a  little  "jealousy  and 
ill  will "  abroad. 

I  do  not  say,  Mr.  President,  that  the  holding  of  a  Peace  Con 
gress  will  necessarily  change  the  currents  of  trade,  but  it  will 
bring  us  into  kindly  relations  with  all  the  American  nations ;  it 
will  promote  the  reign  of  law  and  order ;  it  will  increase  pro-  j 
duction  and  consumption  ;  it  will  stimulate  the  demand  for  arti 
cles  which  American  manufacturers  can  furnish  with  profit.  It 
will,  at  all  events,  be  a  friendly  and  auspicious  beginning  in  the 
direction  of  American  influence  and  American  trade  in  a  large 
field  which  we  have  hitherto  neglected,  and  which  has  been 
practically  monopolized  by  our  commercial  rivals  in  Europe. 

As  Mr.  Frelinglmysen's  dispatch  foreshadowing  an  abandon 
ment  of  a  Peace  Congress  has  been  made  public  by  your 
direction,  I  deem  it  a  matter  of  propriety  and  justice  to  give 
this  letter  to  the  press. 

I  am,  Mr.  President,  with  great  respect,  your  ever  obedient 
servant, 

JAMES  (J.   ELAINE. 


FOREIGN  POLICY  OF  GARFIELD  ADMINISTRATION.     411 


FOREIGN    POLICY    OF    THE    GARFIELD 
ADMINISTRATION. 


PEACE  CONGRESS   OF  AMERICAN   NATIONS.  —  TRADE  RELATIONS 
WITH   SOUTH   AND   CENTRAL   AMERICA. 

THE  foreign  policy  of  President  Garfield's  Administration 
had  two  principal  objects  in  view :  first,  to  bring  about  peace, 
and  prevent  future  wars  in  North  and  South  America  ;  second, 
to  cultivate  such  friendly,  commercial  relations  with  all  Ameri 
can  countries  as  would  lead  to  a  large  increase  in  the  export 
trade  of  the  United  States,  by  supplying  those  fabrics  in  which 
we  are  abundantly  able  to  compete  with  the  manufacturing 
nations  of  Europe. 

To  attain  the  second  object  the  first  must  be  accomplished. 
It  would  be  idle  to  attempt  the  development  and  enlargement 
of  our  trade  with  the  countries  of  North  and  South  America 
if  that  trade  were  liable  at  any  unforeseen  moment  to  be  vio 
lently  interrupted  by  such  wars  as  that  which  for  three  years 
has  engrossed  and  almost  engulfed  Chili,  Peru,  and  Bolivia ;  as 
that  which  was  barely  averted  by  the  friendly  offices  of  the 
United  States  between  Chili  and  the  Argentine  Republic ;  as 
that  which  has  been  postponed  by  the  same  good  offices,  but 
not  decisively  abandoned,  between  Mexico  and  Guatemala; 
as  that  which  is  threatened  between  Brazil  and  Uruguay  ;  as 
that  which  is  even  now  foreshadowed  between  Brazil  and  the 
Argentine  States.  Peace  is  essential  to  commerce,  is  the  very 
life  of  honest  trade,  is  the  solid  basis  of  international  pros 
perity  ;  yet  there  is  no  part  of  the  world  where  a  resort  to 
arms  is  so  prompt  as  in  the  Spanish-American  Republics. 
Those  Republics  have  grown  out  of  the  old  Colonial  divisions, 
formed  from  capricious  grants  to  favorites  by  royal  charter, 


412  POLITICAL    DISCUSSIONS. 

and  their  boundaries  are  in  many  cases  not  clearly  defined  and 
consequently  afford  the  basis  of  continual  disputes,  breaking 
forth  too  often  in  open  war.  To  induce  the  Spanish-American 
States  to  adopt  some  peaceful  mode  of  adjusting  their  fre 
quently  recurring  contentions  was  regarded  by  the  late  Presi 
dent  as  one  of  the  most  honorable  and  useful  ends  to  which 
the  diplomacy  of  the  United  States  could  contribute  —  useful 
especially  to  those  States  by  securing  permanent  peace  within 
their  borders,  and  useful  to  our  own  country  by  affording  a 
coveted  opportunity  for  extending  its  commerce  and  securing 
enlarged  fields  for  our  products  and  manufactures. 

Instead  of  friendly  intervention  here  and  there,  negotiating  a 
treaty  between  two  countries  to-day,  securing  a  truce  between 
two  others  to-morrow,  it  was  apparent  to  the  late  President  that 
a  more  comprehensive  plan  should  be  adopted  if  war  was  to 
cease  in  the  Western  Hemisphere.  It  was  evident  that  certain 
European  Powers  had  in  the  past  been  interested  in  promoting 
strife  between  the  Spanish-American  countries,, and  might  be 
so  interested  in  the  future,  while  the  interest  of  the  United 
States  was  wholly  and  always  on  the  side  of  peace  with  all  our 
American  neighbors,  and  peace  among  them  all. 

It  was  therefore  the  President's  belief  that  incidental  and 
partial  adjustments  failed  to  attain  the  desired  end  and  that 
a  common  agreement  of  peace,  permanent  in  its  character  and 
continental  in  its  extent,  should  if  possible  be  secured.  To 
effect  this  end  it  had  been  resolved,  before  the  fatal  shot  of 
July  2d,  to  invite  all  the  independent  Governments  of  North 
and  Soutn  America  to  meet  in  a  Peace  Congress  at  Washing 
ton.  The  date  to  be  assigned  was  the  15th  of  March,  1882, 
and  the  invitations  would  have  been  issued  directly  after  the 
New  England  tour,  which  the  President  was  not  permitted  to 
make.  Nearly  six  months  later,  on  the  22d  of  November, 
President  Garfield's  successor  issued  the  invitations  for  the 
Peace  Congress  in  the  same  spirit  and  with  the  same  limita 
tions  and  restrictions  that  had  been  originally  designed. 

As  soon  as  the  project  was  understood  in  South  America  it 
received  a  most  cordial  approval,  and  some  of  the  countries, 
not  following  the  leisurely  routine  of  diplomatic  correspond 
ence,  made  haste  to  accept  the  invitation.  There  can  be  no 


FOREIGN  POLICY  OF  GARFIELD  ADMINISTRATION.     413 

doubt  that  within  a  brief  period  all  the  nations  invited  would 
have  formally  signified  their  readiness  to  attend  the  Congress. 
But  in  six  weeks  after  the  invitations  had  gone  to  the  several 
countries,  President  Arthur  caused  them  to  be  recalled,  or  at 
least  suspended.  The  subject  was  afterwards  referred  to  Con 
gress,  in  a  special  message,  in  which  the  President  ably  vindi 
cated  his  Constitutional  right  to  assemble  the  Peace  Congress, 
but  expressed  a  desire  that  the  Legislative  Department  of  the 
Government  should  give  an  opinion  upon  the  expediency  of 
the  step  before  the  Congress  should  be  allowed  to  convene. 
Meanwhile  the  nations  that  received  the  invitation  were  in  an 
embarrassing  situation ;  for  after  they  were  asked  by  the  Presi 
dent  to  come,  they  found  that  the  matter  had  been  reconsid 
ered  and  referred  to  another  department  of  the  Government. 

This  change  was  universally  accepted  as  a  practical  though 
indirect  abandonment  of  the  project,  for  it  was  not  from  the 
first  probable  that  Congress  would  take  action  upon  the  sub 
ject.  The  good  will  and  welcome  of  the  invitation  would  be 
destroyed  by  a  long  debate  in  the  Senate  and  House,  in  which 
the  question  would  necessarily  become  intermixed  with  personal 
and  party  politics,  and  the  project  would  be  ultimately  wrecked 
from  the  same  cause  and  by  the  same  process  that  destroyed 
the  usefulness  of  the  Panama  Congress  during  the  Administra 
tion  of  John  Quincy  Adams  when  Mr.  Clay  was  at  the  head 
of  the  State  Department.  The  time  for  Congressional  action 
would  have  been  after  the  Peace  Conference  had  closed  its 
labors.  The  Conference  could  not  agree  upon  any  thing  that 
would  be  binding  upon  the  United  States,  unless  assented  to 
as  a  treaty  by  the  Senate,  or  enacted  into  a  law  by  both 
branches  of  Congress.  The  assembling  of  the  Peace  Confer 
ence  was  not  in  derogation  of  any  right  or  prerogative  of  the 
Senate  or  House.  The  money  necessary  for  the  expenses  of 
the  Conference  —  which  would  not  have  exceeded  ten  thousand 
dollars  —  could  not,  with  reason  or  propriety,  have  been  with 
held.  If  Congress  had  refused  it,  patriotism  and  philanthropy 
would  have  promptly  supplied  it. 

The  Spanish-American  States  are  in  special  need  of  the  help 
which  the  Peace  Congress  would  afford  them.  They  require 
external  pressure  to  keep  them  from  war;  when  at  war  they 


414  POLITICAL    DISCUSSIONS. 

require  external  pressure  to  bring  them  to  peace.  Their  out 
breaks  are  not  only  frequent  but  are  sanguinary  and  sometimes 
cruel.  The  inhabitants  of  those  countries  are  a  brave  people, 
belonging  to  a  race  that  has  always  been  brave,  descended  of 
men  that  have  always  been  proud.  They  are  of  hot  temper, 
quick  to  take  affront,  ready  to  avenge  a  wrong  whether  real  or 
fancied.  They  are  at  the  same  time  generous  and  chivalrous, 
and  though  tending  for  years  past  to  estrangement  and  aliena 
tion  from  us,  they  would  promptly  respond  to  any  advance 
made  by  the  Great  Republic  of  the  North,  as  they  have  for  two 
generations  termed  our  Government.  The  moral  influence 
upon  the  Spanish-American  people  of  such  an  International 
assembly  as  the  Peace  Congress,  called  by  the  invitation  and 
meeting  under  the  auspices  of  the  United  States,  would  have 
proved  beneficent  and  far-reaching.  It  would  have  raised  the 
standard  of  their  civilization.  It  would  have  turned  their  at 
tention  to  the  things  of  peace ;  and  the  Southern  continent, 
whose  undeveloped  wealth  amazed  Humboldt,  might  have  re 
ceived  a  new  life,  might  have  seen  a  new  and  splendid  career 
opened  to  its  inhabitants. 

Such  friendly  interventions  as  the  proposed  Peace  Congress, 
and  as  the  attempt  to  restore  peace  between  Chili  and  Peru, 
fall  within  the  line  of  both  duty  and  interest  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States.  Nations  like  individuals  often  require  the  aid 
of  a  common  friend  to  restore  relations  of  amity.  Peru  and 
Chili  are  in  deplorable  need  of  a  wise  and  powerful  mediator. 
Though  exhausted  by  war,  they  are  unable  to  make  peace,  and, 
unless  aided  by  the  intervention  of  a  friend,  political  anarchy 
and  social  disorder  will  come  to  the  conquered,  and  evils 
scarcely  less  serious  to  the  conqueror.  Our  own  Government 
cannot  take  the  ground  that  it  will  not  offer  friendly  interven 
tion  to  settle  troubles  between  American  countries,  unless  at 
the  same  time  it  freely  concedes  to  European  Governments  the 
right  of  such  intervention,  and  thus  consents  to  a  practical 
destruction  of  the  Monroe  doctrine  and  an  unlimited  increase 
of  European  influence  on  this  continent.  The  late  special 
envoy  to  Peru  and  Chili,  Mr.  Trescott,  gives  it  as  his  deliber 
ate  and  published  conclusion  that  if  the  instructions  under 
which  he  set  out  upon  his  mission  had  not  been  revoked,  peace 


FOREIGN  POLICY  OF  GARFIELD  ADMINISTRATION.     415 

between  those  angry  belligerents  would  have  been  established  as 
the  result  of  his  labors  —  necessarily  to  the  great  benefit  of  the 
United  States.  If  our  Government  does  not  resume  its  efforts 
to  secure  peace  in  South  America  some  European  Government 
will  be  forced  to  perform  that  friendly  office.  The  United  States 
cannot  play  between  nations  the  part  of  dog  in  the  manger. 

A  significant  and  important  result  would  have  followed 
the  assembling  of  the  Peace  Congress.  A  friendship  and  an 
intimacy  would  have  been  established  between  the  States  of 
North  and  South  America  which  must  have  enforced  a  closer 
commercial  connection.  A  movement  in  the  near  future,  as  the 
legitimate  outgrowth  of  assured  peace,  would,  in  all  probability, 
have  been  a  commercial  conference  at  the  City  of  Mexico  or  at 
Rio  Janeiro,  whose  deliberations  would  be  directed  to  a  better 
system  of  trade  on  the  two  continents.  To  such  a  conference 
the  Dominion  of  Canada  could  properly  be  asked  to  send  repre 
sentatives,  as  that  Government  is  allowed  by  Great  Britain  a 
large  liberty  in  regulating  its  trade  relations.  In  the  Peace 
Congress,  to  be  composed  of  independent  governments,  the 
Dominion  could  not  have  taken  part,  and  was  consequently 
not  invited.  From  this  trade-conference  of  the  two  continents 
the  United  States  could  hardly  have  failed  to  gain  great  advan 
tages.  At  present  the  commercial  relations  of  this  country 
with  the  Spanish-American  countries,  both  continental  and 
insular,  are  unsatisfactory  and  unprofitable  —  indeed,  those 
relations  are  absolutely  oppressive  to  the  financial  interests  of 
the  Government  and  people  of  the  United  States.  In  our 
current  exchanges  it  requires  about  one  hundred  and  twenty 
millions  of  dollars  to  pay  the  balance  which  Spanish  America 
brings  against  us  every  year.  This  amount  is  fifty  per  cent 
more  than  the  average  annual  product  of  the  gold  and  silver 
mines  of  the  United  States  during  the  past  five  years.  This 
vast  sum  does  not  of  course  go  to  Spanish  America  in  coin,  but 
it  goes  across  the  ocean  in  coin  or  its  equivalent,  to  pay  Euro 
pean  countries  for  manufactured  articles  which  they  furnish  to 
Spanish  America  —  a  large  proportion  of  which  should  be  fur 
nished  by  the  manufacturers  of  the  United  States. 

At  this  point  of  the  argument  the  Free-trader  appears  and 
declares  that  our  Protective  tariff  destroys  our  power  of  compe- 


416  POLITICAL    DISCUSSIONS. 

tition  with  European  countries,  and  that  if  we  will  abolish  Pro 
tection  we  shall  soon  have  South-American  trade.  The  answer 
is  not  sufficient,  for  to-day  there  are  many  articles  which  we  can 
send  to  South  America  and  sell  as  cheaply  as  European  manu 
facturers  can  furnish  them.  It  is  idle,  of  course,  to  make  this 
statement  to  the  genuine  apostle  of  Free  Trade  and  the  implaca 
ble  enemy  of  Protection,  for  the  great  postulate  of  his  argument, 
the  foundation  of  his  creed,  is  that  nothing  can  be  made  as 
cheaply  in  America  as  in  Europe.  Nevertheless  facts  are  stub 
born  and  the  hard  figures  of  arithmetic  cannot  be  satisfactorily 
answered  by  airy  figures  of  speech.  The  truth  remains  that 
the  coarser  descriptions  of  cottons  and  cotton  prints,  boots  and 
shoes,  ordinary  household  furniture,  harness  for  draught  animals, 
agricultural  implements  of  all  kinds,  doors,  sashes  and  blinds, 
locks,  bolts  and  hinges,  silverware,  plated  ware,  woodenware, 
ordinary  papers  and  paper  hangings,  common  vehicles,  ordinary 
window-glass  and  glassware,  rubber  goods,  coal  oils,  lard  oils, 
kerosenes,  white-lead,  lead  pipe  and  articles  in  which  lead  is  a 
chief  component,  can  be  and  are  produced  as  cheaply  in  the 
United  States  as  in  any  other  part  of  the  world.  The  list  cf 
such  articles  might  be  lengthened  by  the  addition  of  those 
classed  as  "  notions,"  but  only  enough  are  given  to  show  that 
this  country  would,  with  proper  commercial  arrangements,  ex 
port  much  more  largely  than  it  now  does  to  Spanish  America. 

In  the  trade  relations  of  the  world  it  does  not  follow  that 
mere  ability  to  produce  as  cheaply  as  another  nation  insures  a 
division  of  an  established  market,  or,  indeed,  any  participation 
in  it.  France  manufactures  many  articles  as  cheaply  as  Eng 
land  —  some  articles  at  even  less  cost.  Portugal  lies  nearer  to 
France  than  to  England,  and  the  expense  of  transporting  the 
French  fabric  to  the  Portuguese  market  is  therefore  less  than 
the  transportation  of  the  English  fabric.  Yet  Great  Britain 
has  almost  a  monopoly  in  the  trade  of  Portugal.  The  same  con 
dition  applies,  though  in  a  less  degree,  to  the  trade  of  Turkey, 
Syria  and  Egypt,  which  England  holds  to  a  much  greater  ex 
tent  than  any  of  the  other  European  nations  that  are  able  to 
produce  the  same  fabric  as  cheaply.  If  it  be  said  in  answer 
that  England  has  special  trade  relations  by  treaty  with  Portu 
gal  and  special  obligations  binding  the  other  countries,  the 


FOREIGN  TOLICY  OF  GARFIELD  ADMINISTRATION.     417 

ready  answer  is  that  she  has  no  more  favorable  position  with 
respect  to  those  countries  than  can  be  readily  and  easily  acquired 
by  the  United  States  with  respect  to  all  the  countries  of 
America.  That  end  will  be  reached  whenever  the  United 
States  desires  it  and  wills  it,  and  is  ready  to  take  the  steps 
necessary  to  secure  it.  At  present  the  trade  with  Spanish 
America  runs  so  strongly  in  channels  adverse  to  us,  that,  beside 
our  inability  to  furnish  manufactured  articles,  we  do  not  get 
the  profit  on  our  own  raw  products  that  are  shipped  there.  Our 
petroleum  reaches  most  of  the  Spanish-American  ports  after 
twice  crossing  the  Atlantic,  paying  often  a  better  profit  to  the 
European  middle  man  who  handles  it  than  it  does  to  the  pro 
ducer  of  the  oil  in  the  north-western  counties  of  Pennsylvania. 
Flour  and  pork  from  the  West  reach  Cuba  by  way  of  Spain, 
and  though  we  buy  and  consume  ninety  per  cent  of  the  total 
products  of  Cuba,  almost  that  proportion  of  her  purchases  are 
made  in  Europe  —  made,  of  course,  with  money  furnished 
directly  from  our  pockets. 

As  our  exports  to  Spanish  America  grow  less,  as  European 
exports  constantly  grow  larger,  the  balance  against  us  will  show 
an  annual  increase,  and  will  continue  to  exhaust  our  supply  of 
the  precious  metals.  We  are  increasing  our  imports  from  South 
America,  and  the  millions  we  annually  pay  for  coffee,  wool, 
hides,  guano,  cinchona,  caoutchouc,  cabinet  woods,  dye  woods 
and  other  articles,  go  for  the  ultimate  benefit  of  European 
manufacturers  who  take  the  gold  from  us  and  send  their  fabrics 
to  Spanish  America.  If  we  could  send  our  fabrics,  our  gold 
would  stay  at  home  and  our  general  prosperity  would  be  sen 
sibly  increased.  But  so  long  as  we  repel  Spanish  America,  so 
long  as  we  leave  her  to  cultivate  intimate  relations  with  Europe 
alone,  so  long  our  trade  relations  will  remain  unsatisfactory  and 
even  embarrassing.  Those  countries  sell  to  us  very  heavily. 
They  buy  from  us  very  lightly.  The  amount  they  bring  us  in 
debt  each  year  is  larger  than  the  heaviest  aggregate  balance  of 
trade  we  have  against  us  in  the  worst  of  times.  The  average 
balance  against  us  for  the  whole  world  in  the  five  most  adverse 
years  we  ever  experienced,  was  about  one  hundred  millions  of 
dollars.  This  plainly  shows  that  in  our  European  exchanges, 
there  is  always  a  balance  in  our  favor  and  that  our  chief  defi- 


418  POLITICAL    DISCUSSIONS. 

ciency  arises  from  our  ill-adjusted  commercial  relations  with 
Spanish  America.  It  follows  that  if  our  Spanish-American 
trade  were  placed  on  a  better  and  more  equitable  foundation,  it 
would  be  well-nigh  impossible  even  in  years  most  unfavorable 
to  us,  to  bring  us  in  debt  to  the  world. 

With  such  heavy  purchases  as  we  are  compelled  to  make  from 
Spanish  America,  it  could  hardly  be  expected  that  we  should 
be  able  to  adjust  the  entire  account  by  exports.  But  the  bal 
ance  against  us  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  millions  in  gold 
coin  is  far  too  large  and  is  in  time  of  stringency  a  standing 
menace  of  financial  disaster.  It  should  not  be  forgotten  that 
every  million  dollars'  worth  of  products  or  fabrics  that  we  sell  in 
Spanish  America  is  a  million  dollars  in  gold  saved  to  our  own 
country.  The  immediate  profit  is  to  the  producer  and  the 
exporter,  but  the  entire  country  realizes  a  gain  in  the  ease  and 
affluence  of  the  money  market  which  is  insured  by  keeping  our 
gold  at  home. 

It  is  only  claimed  for  the  Peace  Congress,  designed  under  the 
administration  of  President  Garfield,  that  it  was  an  important 
and  impressive  step  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  towards 
closer  relationship  with  our  continental  neighbors.  The  present 
tendency  in  those  countries  is  towards  Europe,  and  it  is  a 
lamentable  fact  that  their  people  are  not  so  near  to  us  in  feeling 
as  they  were  sixty  years  ago  when  they  threw  off  the  yoke  of 
Spanish  tyranny.  We  were  then  a  weak  republic  of  but  ten 
millions,  but  we  did  not  hesitate  to  recognize  the  independence 
of  the  new  Governments,  even  at  the  risk  of  a  war  with  Spain. 
Our  foreign  policy  at  that  time  was  especially  designed  to  ex 
tend  our  influence  in  the  Western  Hemisphere,  and  the  states 
men  of  that  era  —  the  era  of  De  Witt  Clinton  and  the  younger 
Adams,  of  Clay  and  Crawford,  of  Webster  and  Calhoun,  of 
Van  Buren  and  Benton,  of  Jackson  and  Edward  Livingston 
—  were  always  courageous  in  the  inspiring  measures  which  they 
advocated  for  the  expansion  of  our  commercial  dominion. 

Threescore  years  have  passed.  The  power  of  the  Republic 
in  many  directions  has  grown  beyond  all  anticipation,  but  we 
have  relatively  lost  ground  in  some  great  fields  of  enterprise. 
We  have  added  thousands  of  miles  to  our  ocean  front,  but  our 
foreign  commerce  is  relatively  less,  and  from  ardent  friendship 


FOREIGN  POLICY  OF  GARFIELD   ADMINISTRATION.     419 

with  Spanish  America  we  have  drifted  into  indifference  if  not 
into  coldness.  It  is  but  one  step  further  to  reach  a  condition 
of  positive  unfriendliness,  which  may  end  in  what  would  be 
equivalent  to  a  commercial  alliance  against  us.  Already  one  of 
the  most  dangerous  of  movements  —  that  of  a  European  guar 
antee  and  guardianship  of  the  Interoceanic  canal  —  is  suggested 
and  urged  upon  the  foreign  Powers  by  representatives  of 
a  South-American  country.  If  these  tendencies  are  to  be 
averted,  if  Spanish-American  friendship  is  to  be  regained,  if  the 
commercial  empire  that  legitimately  belongs  to  us  is  to  be  ours, 
we  must  not  lie  idle  and  witness  its  transfer  to  others.  If  we 
would  reconquer  it,  a  great  first  step  is  to  be  taken.  It  is  the 
first  step  that  costs.  It  is  also  the  first  step  that  counts.  Can 
a  wiser  step  be  suggested  than  the  Peace  Congress  of  the  two 
Americas,  that  was  devised  under  Garfield  and  had  the  weight 
of  his  great  name  ? 

In  no  event  could  harm  have  resulted  from  the  assembling  of 
the  Peace  Congress.  Failure  was  next  to  impossible.  Success 
might  be  regarded  as  certain.  The  subject  to  be  discussed  was 
Peace,  and  the  measures  by  which  it  can  be  permanently  pre 
served  in  North  and  South  America.  The  labors  of  the  Con 
gress  would  probably  have  ended  in  a  well-digested  system  of 
arbitration,  under  which  all  future  troubles  between  American 
States  could  be  promptly  and  satisfactorily  adjusted.  Such 
a  consummation  would  have  been  worth  a  great  struggle  and  a 
great  sacrifice.  It  could  have  been  reached  without  struggle 
and  would  have  involved  no  sacrifice.  It  was  within  our  grasp. 
It  was  ours  for  the  asking.  It  would  have  been  a  signal  victory 
of  philanthropy  over  the  selfishness  of  human  ambition ;  a  com 
plete  triumph  of  Christian  principles  as  applied  to  the  affairs  of 
nations.  It  would  have  reflected  enduring  honor  on  our  own 
country  and  would  have  imparted  a  new  spirit  and  a  new 
brotherhood  to  all  America.  Nor  would  its  influence  beyond 
the  sea  have  been  small.  The  example  of  seventeen  independ 
ent  nations  solemnly  agreeing  to  abolish  the  arbitrament  of  the 
sword,  and  to  settle  every  dispute  by  peaceful  adjudication, 
would  have  exerted  an  influence  to  the  utmost  confines  of 
civilization,  and  upon  generations  of  men  yet  to  .come. 


420  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


MR.    ELAINE'S    LETTER   ACCEPTING    THE    REPUB 
LICAN    NOMINATION   FOR  THE    PRESIDENCY   IN 

1884. 


AUGUSTA,  ME.,  July  15, 1881. 
The  Honorable  John  B.  Henderson  and  others  of  the  Committee,  etc. 

GENTLEMEN,  —  In  accepting  the  nomination  for  the  Presi 
dency  tendered  me  by  the  Republican  National  Convention,  I 
beg  to  express  a  deep  sense  of  the  honor  which  is  conferred 
and  of  the  duty  which  is  imposed.  I  venture  to  accompany 
the  acceptance  with  some  observations  upon  the  questions 
involved  in  the  contest  —  questions  whose  settlement  may 
affect  the  future  of  the  Nation  favorably  or  unfavorably  for  a 
long  series  of  years. 

In  enumerating  the  issues  upon  which  the  Republican  party 
appeals  for  popular  support,  the  Convention  has  been  singu 
larly  explicit  and  felicitous.  It  has  properly  given  the  leading 
position  to  the  industrial  interests  of  the  country  as  affected 
by  the  tariff  on  imports.  On  that  question  the  two  political 
parties  are  radically  in  conflict.  Almost  the  first  act  of  the 
Republicans,  when  they  came  into  power  in  1861,  was  the 
establishment  of  the  principle  of  Protection  to  American  labor 
and  to  American  capital.  This  principle  the  Republican  party 
has  ever  since  steadily  maintained,  while  on  the  other  hand  the 
Democratic  party  in  Congress  has  for  fifty  years  persistently 
warred  upon  it.  Twice  within  that  period  our  opponents  have 
destroyed  tariffs  arranged  for  Protection,  and  since  the  close 
of  the  civil  war,  whenever  they  have  controlled  the  House  of 
Representatives,  hostile  legislation  has  been  attempted  —  never 
more  conspicuously  than  in  their  principal  measure  at  the  late 
session  of  Congress. 


MR.  ELAINE  ACCEPTS  THE  NOMINATION  IN  1884.      421 

Revenue  laws  are  in  their  very  nature  subject  to  frequent 
revision  in  order  that  they  may  be  adapted  to  changes  and 
modifications  of  trade.  The  Republican  party  is  not  contend 
ing  for  the  permanency  of  any  particular  statute.  The  issue 
between  the  two  parties  does  not  have  reference  to  a  specific 
law.  It  is  far  broader  and  far  deeper :  it  involves  a  principle 
of  wide  application  and  beneficent  influence  against  a  theory 
which  we  believe  to  be  unsound  in  conception  and  inevitably 
hurtful  in  practice.  In  the  many  tariff  revisions  which  have 
been  necessary  for  the  past  twenty-three  years,  or  which  may 
hereafter  become  necessary,  the  Republican  party  has  main 
tained  and  will  maintain  the  policy  of  Protection  to  American 
industry,  while  our  opponents  insist  upon  a  revision,  which 
practically  destroys  that  policy.  The  issue  is  thus  distinct, 
well  defined,  and  unavoidable.  The  pending  election  may  de 
termine  the  fate  of  Protection  for  a  generation.  The  over 
throw  of  the  policy  means  a  large  and  permanent  reduction  in 
the  wages  of  the  American  laborer,  besides  involving  the  loss 
of  vast  amounts  of  American  capital  invested  in  manufacturing 
enterprises.  The  value  of  our  present  revenue  system  to  the 
People  is  not  a  matter  of  theory,  and  I  shall  submit  no  argu 
ment  to  sustain  it.  I  only  invite  attention  to  certain  facts  of 
official  record  which  seem  to  constitute  a  demonstration. 

In  the  census  of  1850  an  effort  was  made,  for  the  first  time 
in  our  history,  to  obtain  a  valuation  of  all  the  property  in  the 
United  States.  The  attempt  was  in  large  degree  unsuccessful. 
Partly  from  lack  of  time,  partly  from  prejudice  among  many 
who  thought  the  inquiries  foreshadowed  a  new  scheme  of  taxa 
tion,  the  returns  were  incomplete  and  unsatisfactory.  Little 
more  was  done  than  to  consolidate  the  local  valuation  used 
in  the  States  for  purposes  of  assessment,  and  that,  as  is  well 
known,  differs  widely  from  a  complete  exhibit  of  all  the  property. 

In  the  census  of  1860,  however,  the  work  was  done  with 
great  thoroughness  —  the  distinction  between  "  assessed  "  value 
and  "  true  "  value  being  carefully  observed.  The  grand  result 
was  that  the  "  true  value  "  of  all  the  property  in  the  States  and 
territories  (excluding  slaves)  amounted  to  fourteen  thousand 
millions  of  dollars  (814,000,000,000.)  This  aggregate  was  the 
net  result  of  the  labor  and  the  savings  of  all  the  people  within 


422  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIOXS. 

the  area  of  the  United  States  from  the  time  the  first  British 
colonist  landed  in  1607  down  to  the  year  1860.  It  represented 
the  fruit  of  the  toil  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  years. 

After  1860  the  business  of  the  country  was  encouraged  and 
developed  by  a  Protective  Tariff.  At  the  end  of  twenty 
years  the  total  property  of  the  United  States,  as  returned  by 
the  census  of  1880,  amounted  to  the  enormous  aggregate  of 
forty-four  thousand  millions  of  dollars  ($44,000,000,000.)  This 
great  result  was  attained,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  count 
less  millions  had  in  the  interval  been  wasted  in  the  progress 
of  a  bloody  war.  It  thus  appears  that  while  our  population 
between  1860  and  1880  increased  sixty  per  cent,  the  aggregate 
property  of  the  country  increased  two  hundred  and  fourteen 
per  cent  —  showing  a  largely  enhanced  wealth  per  capita  among 
the  people.  Thirty  thousand  millions  of  dollars  (830,000,000,- 
000)  had  been  added  during  these  twenty  years  to  the  perma 
nent  wealth  of  the  nation  —  81,500,000,000  per  annum. 

These  results  are  regarded  by  the  older  nations  of  the  world 
as  phenomenal.  That  our  country  should  surmount  the  peril 
and  the  cost  of  a  gigantic  war  and  for  an  entire  period  of 
twenty  years  make  an  average  gain  to  its  wealth  of  one  hun 
dred  and  twenty-five  million  dollars  per  month  surpasses  the 
experience  of  all  other  nations,  ancient  or  modern.  Even  the 
opponents  of  the  present  Revenue  system  do  not  pretend  that 
in  the  whole  history  of  civilization  any  parallel  can  be  found 
to  the  material  progress  of  the  United  States,  since  the  acces 
sion  of  the  Republican  party  to  power. 

The  period  which  has  elapsed  since  1860  has  not  only 
been  one  of  material  prosperity,  but  at  no  time  in  the  his 
tory  of  the  United  States  has  there  been  such  progress  in 
the  moral  and  philanthropic  field.  Religious  and  charitable 
institutions,  schools,  seminaries,  and  colleges,  have  been  founded 
and  endowed  far  more  liberally  than  at  any  previous  time 
in  our  history.  Greater  and  more  varied  relief  has  been 
extended  to  human  suffering  and  the  entire  progress  of  the 
country  in  wealth  has  been  accompanied  and  dignified  by  a 
broadening  and  uplifting  of  our  character  as  a  People. 

Our  opponents  find  fault  that  our  revenue  system  produces 
a  surplus ;  but  they  should  not  forget  that  the  law  has  given  a 


MR.  ELAINE  ACCEPTS   THE  NOMINATION  IN   1884.      423 

specific  purpose  to  which  the  whole  of  the  surplus  is  profitably 
and  honorably  applied  —  the  reduction  of  the  public  debt  and 
the  consequent  relief  of  the  burden  of  taxation.  No  dollar  has 
been  wasted,  and  the  only  extravagance  with  which  the  party 
stands  charged  is  the  generous  pensioning  of  soldiers,  sailors, 
and  their  families  —  an  extravagance  which  embodies  the  high 
est  form  of  justice  in  the  recognition  and  payment  of  a  sacred 
debt.  When  reduction  of  taxation  is  to  be  made,  the  Repub 
lican  party  can  be  trusted  to  accomplish  it  in  such  form  as  will 
most  effectively  aid  the  industries  of  the  nation. 

A  frequent  accusation  by  our  opponents  is  that  the  foreign 
commerce  of  the  country  has  steadily  decayed  under  the  influ 
ence  of  the  Protective  tariff.  In  this  way  they  seek  to  array 
the  importing  interest  against  the  Republican  party.  It  is  a 
common  and  yet  radical  error  to  confound  the  commerce  of  the 
country  with  its  carrying-trade  —  an  error  often  committed  in 
nocently  and  sometimes  designedly  —  but  an  error  so  gross  that 
it  does  not  distinguish  between  the  ship  and  the  cargo.  For 
eign  commerce  represents  the  exports  and  imports  of  a  country 
regardless  of  the  nationality  of  the  vessel  that  may  carry  the 
commodities  of  exchange.  Our  carrying-trade  has  from  obvious 
causes  suffered  many  discouragements  since  1860,  but  our  for 
eign  commerce  has  in  the  same  period  steadily  and  prodigiously 
increased  —  increased  indeed  at  a  rate  and  to  an  amount  which 
absolutely  dwarf  all  previous  developments  of  our  trade  beyond 
the  sea.  From  1860  to  the  present  time  the  foreign  commerce 
of  the  United  States  (divided  with  approximate  equality  be 
tween  exports  and  imports)  reached  a  grand  total  of  twenty-four 
thousand  millions  of  dollars  (124,000,000,000).  The  balance 
in  this  astounding  aggregate  of  exchanges  inclined  in  our 
favor,  but  it  would  have  been  much  larger  if  our  trade  with 
the  countries  of  America,  elsewhere  referred  to,  had  been  more 
wisely  adjusted. 

It  is  difficult  even  to  appreciate  the  magnitude  of  our  export 
trade  since  1860  and  we  can  gain  a  correct  conception  of  it  only 
by  comparison  with  preceding  results  in  the  same  field.  The 
total  exports  from  the  United  States  from  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  in  1776  down  to  the  day  of  Lincoln's  election  in 


424  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

1860,  added  to  all  that  had  previously  been  exported  from  the 
American  Colonies  from  their  original  settlement,  amounted  to 
less  than  nine  thousand  millions  of  dollars  (19,000,000,000). 
On  the  other  hand  our  exports  from  1860  to  the  close  of  the 
last  fiscal  year  exceeded  twelve  thousand  millions  of  dollars 
(112,000,000,000)  — the  whole  of  it  being  the  product  of  Ameri 
can  labor.  Evidently  a  Protective  tariff  has  not  injured  our 
export  trade  when  under  its  influence  we  exported  in  twenty- 
four  years  thirty-three  per  cent  more  than  the  total  amount  that 
had  been  exported  in  the  entire  previous  history  of  American 
commerce.  All  the  details,  when  analyzed,  correspond  with  this 
amazing  result.  The  commercial  cities  of  the  Union  never  had 
such  growth  as  they  have  enjoyed  since  1860.  Our  chief  empo 
rium,  the  city  of  New  York,  with  its  dependencies,  has  within 
that  period  doubled  her  population  and  increased  her  wealth 
fivefold.  During  the  same  period  the  imports  and  exports 
which  have  entered  and  left  her  harbor  are  more  than  double 
in  bulk  and  value  the  whole  amount  exported  by  her  between 
the  settlement  of  the  first  Dutch  colony  on  the  island  of  Man 
hattan  and  the  outbreak  of  the  civil  war  in  1860. 

The  agricultural  interest  is  by  far  the  largest  in  the  Nation, 
and  in  every  adjustment  of  Revenue  Laws  is  entitled  to  the  first 
consideration.  Any  policy  hostile  to  the  fullest  development  of 
agriculture  in  the  United  States  must  be  abandoned.  Realizing 
this  fact  the  opponents  of  the  present  system  of  Revenue  have 
labored  very  earnestly  to  persuade  the  farmers  of  the  United 
States  that  they  are  robbed  by  a  Protective  Tariff,  and  the 
effort  is  thus  made  to  consolidate  their  influence  in  favor  of 
Free  Trade.  But  happily  the  farmers  of  America  are  intelli 
gent  and  cannot  be  misled  by  sophistry  when  conclusive  facts 
are  before  them.  They  see  plainly  that  during  the  past  twenty- 
four  years,  wealth  has  not  been  acquired  in  one  section  or  by 
one  interest  at  the  expense  of  another  section  or  another  inter 
est.  They  see  that  the  agricultural  States  have  made  even 
more  rapid  progress  than  the  manufacturing  States. 

The  farmers  see  that  in  1860  Massachusetts  and  Illinois  had 
about  the  same  wealth  —  between  eight  and  nine  hundred  mil 
lion  dollars  each  —  and  that  in  1880  Massachusetts  had  advanced 


MR.  ELAINE   ACCEPTS   THE   NOMINATION  IN   1884.      425 

to  twenty-six  hundred  millions,  while  Illinois  had  advanced  to 
thirty-two  hundred  millions.  They  see  that  New  Jersey  and 
Iowa  were  in  1860  just  equal  in  population  and  that  in  twenty 
years  the  wealth  of  New  Jersey  was  increased  by  the  sum  of 
eight  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  dollars,  while  the  wealth 
of  Iowa  was  increased  by  the  sum  of  fifteen  hundred  millions. 
They  see  that  the  nine  leading  agricultural  States  of  the  West 
have  grown  so  rapidly  in  prosperity  that  the  aggregate  addition 
to  their  wealth  since  1860  is  nearly  as  great  as  the  wealth  of 
the  entire  country  in  that  year.  They  see  that  the  South, 
which  is  mainly  agricultural,  has  shared  in  the  general  pros 
perity  and  that  having  recovered  from  the  loss  and  devastation 
of  war,  has  gained  so  rapidly  that  its  total  wealth  is  at  least 
double  that  which  it  possessed  in  1860,  exclusive  of  slaves. 

In  these  extraordinary  developments  the  farmers  see  the  help 
ful  impulse  of  a  home  market,  and  they  see  that  the  financial 
and  revenue  system,  enacted  since  the  Republican  party  came 
into  power,  has  established  and  constantly  expanded  the  home 
market.  They  see  that  even  in  the  case  of  wheat,  which  is  our 
chief  cereal  export,  they  have  sold,  in  the  average  of  the  years 
since  the  close  of  the  war,  three  bushels  at  home  to  one  they 
have  sold  abroad,  and  that  in  the  case  of  corn,  the  only  other 
cereal  which  we  export  to  any  extent,  one  hundred  bushels  have 
been  used  at  home  to  three  and  a  half  bushels  exported.  In 
some  years  the  disparity  .has  been  so  great  that  for  every  peck 
of  corn  exported  one  hundred  bushels  have  been  consumed  in 
the  home  market.  The  farmers  see  that  in  the  increasing  com 
petition  from  the  grain-fields  of  Russia  and  from  the  distant 
plains  of  India,  the  growth  of  the  home  market  becomes  daily 
of  greater  concern  to  them  and  that  the  impairment  of  that 
market  would  depreciate  the  value  of  every  acre  of  tillable  land 
in  the  Union. 

Such  facts  as  these  touching  the  growth  and  consumption  of 
cereals  at  home  give  us  some  slight  conception  of  the  vastness 
of  the  internal  commerce  of  the  United  States.  They  suggest 
also  that,  in  addition  to  the  advantages  which  the  American 
people  enjoy  from  protection  against  foreign  competition,  they 
enjoy  the  advantages  of  absolute  free  trade  over  a  larger  area 


426  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

and  with  a  greater  population  than  any  other  nation.  The  in 
ternal  commerce  of  our  thirty-eight  States  and  nine  Territories 
is  carried  on  without  let  or  hindrance,  without  tax,  detention  or 
Governmental  interference  of  any  kind  whatever.  It  spreads 
freely  over  an  area  of  three  and  a  half  millions  of  square  miles 
—  almost  equal  in  extent  to  the  whole  continent  of  Europe. 
Its  profits  are  enjoyed  to-day  by  fifty-six  millions  of  American 
freemen,  and  from  this  enjoyment  no  monopoly  is  created. 
According  to  Alexander  Hamilton,  when  he  discussed  the  same 
subject  in  1790,  "the  internal  competition  which  takes  place 
does  away  with  every  thing  like  monopoly,  and  by  degrees  re 
duces  the  prices  of  articles  to  the  minimum  of  a  reasonable 
profit  on  the  capital  employed."  It  is  impossible  to  point  to  a 
single  monopoly  that  has  been  created  or  fostered  by  the  In 
dustrial  System  which  is  upheld  by  the  Republican  party. 

Compared  with  our  foreign  commerce  these  domestic  ex 
changes  are  inconceivably  great  in  amount  —  requiring  merely 
for  one  instrumentality  as  large  a  mileage  of  railway  as  exists 
to-day  in  all  the  other  nations  of  the  world.  These  internal 
exchanges  are  estimated  by  the  Statistical  Bureau  of  the 
Treasury  Department  to  be  annualty  twenty  times  as  great 
in  amount  as  our  foreign  commerce.  It  is  into  this  field  of 
home  trade  —  at  once  the  creation  and  the  heritage  of  the 
American  people  —  that  foreign  nations  are  striving  to  enter. 
It  is  into  this  field  that  the  opponents  of  our  present  revenue 
system  would  freely  admit  the  countries  of  Europe  —  countries 
in  whose  internal  trade  we  could  not  reciprocally  share ;  coun 
tries  to  which  we  should  be  surrendering  every  advantage  of 
traffic ;  from  which  we  should  be  gaining  nothing  in  return. 

A  policy  that  would  abandon  this  field  of  home  trade  must 
prove  disastrous  to  the  mechanics  and  workingmen  of  the  United 
States.  Wages  are  unjustly  reduced  when  an  industrious  man 
is  not  able  by  his  earnings  to  live  in  comfort,  educate  his 
children,  and  save  a  sufficient  amount  for  the  necessities  of  age. 
The  reduction  of  wages  inevitably  consequent  upon  throwing 
our  home  market  open  to  the  world,  would  deprive  the  working- 
men  of  the  United  States  of  the  power  to  do  this.  It  would 
prove  a  great  calamity  to  our  country.  It  would  produce  a 


MR.  ELAINE  ACCEPTS  THE  NOMINATION  IN  1884.     427 

conflict  between  the  poor  and  the  rich,  and  in  the  sorrowful 
degradation  of  labor  would  plant  the  seeds  of  public  danger. 

The  Republican  party  has  steadily  aimed  to  maintain  just 
relations  between  Labor  and  Capital  —  guarding  with  care  the 
rights  of  each.  A  conflict  between  the  two  has  always  led  in 
the  past  and  will  always  lead  in  the  future  to  the  injury  of  both. 
Labor  is  indispensable  to  the  creation  and  profitable  use  of 
capital,  and  capital  increases  the  efficiency  and  value  of  labor. 
Whoever  arrays  the  one  against  the  other  is  an  enemy  of  both. 
That  policy  is  wisest  -and  best  which  harmonizes  the  two  on  the 
basis  of  absolute  justice.  The  Republican  party  has  protected 
the  free  labor  of  America  so  that  its  compensation  is  larger  than 
is  realized  in  any  other  country.  It  has  guarded  our  people 
against  the  unfair  competition  of  contract  labor  from  China  and 
may  be  called  upon  to  prohibit  the  growth  of  a  similar  evil  from 
Europe.  It  is  obviously  unfair  to  permit  capitalists  to  make 
contracts  for  cheap  labor  in  foreign  countries  to  the  hurt  and 
disparagement  of  the  labor  of  American  citizens.  Such  a  policy 
(like  that  which  would  leave  the  time  and  other  conditions  of 
home  labor  exclusively  in  the  control  of  the  employer)  is  in 
jurious  to  all  parties  —  not  the  least  so  to  the  unhappy  persons 
who  are  made  the  subjects  of  the  contract.  The  institutions  of 
the  United  States  rest  upon  the  intelligence  and  virtue  of  all 
the  people.  Suffrage  is  made  universal  as  a  just  weapon  of 
self-protection  to  every  citizen.  It  is  not  the  interest  of  the 
Republic  that  an}^  economic  system  should  be  adopted  which 
involves  the  reduction  of  wages  to  the  hard  standard  prevailing 
elsewhere.  The  Republican  party  aims  to  elevate  and  dignify 
labor  —  not  to  degrade  it. 

As  a  substitute  for  the  industrial  system  which  under  Re 
publican  administrations  has  developed  a  prosperity  so  extraor 
dinary,  our  opponents  offer  a  policy  which  is  but  a  series  of 
experiments  upon  our  system  of  revenue  —  a  policy  whose  end 
must  be  harm  to  our  manufactures  and  greater  harm  to  our 
labor.  Experiment  in  the  industrial  and  financial  system  is  the 
country's  greatest  dread,  as  stability  is  its  greatest  boon.  Even 
the  uncertainty  resulting  from  the  recent  tariff  agitation  in 
Congress  has  hurtfully  affected  the  business  of  the  entire  coun 
try.  Who  can  measure  the  injury  to  our  shops  and  our  homes, 


428  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

to  our  farms  and  our  commerce,  if  the  uncertainty  of  perpetual 
tariff  agitation  is  to  be  inflicted  upon  the  country  ? 

Our  Foreign  relations  favor  our  domestic  development.  We 
are  at  peace  with  the  world  —  at  peace  upon  a  sound  basis  with 
no  unsettled  questions  of  sufficient  magnitude  to  embarrass  or 
distract  us.  Happily  removed  by  our  geographical  position 
from  participation  or  interest  in  those  questions  of  dynasty  or 
boundary  which  so  frequently  disturb  the  peace  of  Europe,  we 
are  left  to  cultivate  friendly  relations  with  all,  and  are  free 
from  possible  entanglements  in  the  quarrels  of  any.  The 
United  States  has  no  cause  and  no  desire  to  engage  in  conflict 
with  any  Power  on  earth,  and  we  may  rest  in  assured  confi 
dence  that  no  Power  desires  to  attack  the  United  States. 

With  the  nations  of  the  Western  Hemisphere  we  should  cul 
tivate  closer  relations  and  for  our  common  prosperity  and  ad 
vancement 'we  should  invite  them  all  to  join  with  us  in  an 
agreement  that,  for  the  future,  all  international  troubles  in 
North  or  South  America  shall  be  adjusted  by  impartial  arbi 
tration  and  not  by  arms.  This  project  was  part  of  the  fixed 
policy  of  President  Garfield's  Administration  and  it  should  in 
my  judgment  be  revived.  Its  accomplishment  on  this  conti 
nent  would  favorably  affect  the  nations  beyond  the  sea,  and 
thus  powerfully  contribute  at  no  distant  day  to  the  universal 
acceptance  of  the  philanthropic  and  Christian  principle  of  arbi 
tration.  The  effect  even  of  suggesting  it  to  the  Spanish- 
American  States  has  been  most  happy  and  has  increased  the 
confidence  of  those  people  in  our  friendly  disposition.  It  fell 
to  my  lot  as  Secretary  of  State  in  June,  1881,  to  quiet  appre 
hension  in  the  Republic  of  Mexico,  by  giving  the  assurance  in 
an  official  dispatch  that  "  there  is  not  the  faintest  desire  in  the 
United  States  for  territorial  extension  south  of  the  Rio 
Grande.  The  boundaries  of  the  two  Republics  have  been 
established  in  conformity  with  the  best  jurisdictional  interests 
of  both.  The  line  of  demarcation  is  not  merely  conventional. 
It  is  more ;  it  separates  a  Spanish-American  people  from  a 
Saxon-American  people ;  it  divides  one  great  nation  from 
another  with  distinct  and  natural  finality." 

We  seek  the  conquests  of  peace  ;   we  desire  to  extend  our 


MR.  ELAINE  ACCEPTS  THE  NOMINATION  IN   1884.     429 

commerce,  and  in  an  especial  degree  with  our  friends  and 
neighbors  on  this  continent.  We  have  not  improved  our  rela 
tions  with  Spanish  America  as  wisely  and  as  persistently  as  we 
might  have  done.  For  more  than  a  generation  the  sympathy 
of  those  countries  has  been  allowed  to  drift  away  from  us. 
We  should  now  make  every  effort  to  gain  their  friendship. 
Our  trade  with  them  is  already  large.  During  the  last  year 
our  exchanges  in  the  Western  Hemisphere  amounted  to  three 
hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  dollars — nearly  one-fourth  of 
our  entire  foreign  commerce.  To  those  who  may  be  disposed 
to  underrate  the  value  of  our  trade  with  the  countries  of  North 
and  South  America,  it  may  be  well  to  state  that  their  popula 
tion  is  nearly  or  quite  fifty  millions  —  and  that,  in  proportion 
to  aggregate  numbers,  we  import  nearly  double  as  much  from 
them  as  we  do  from  Europe.  But  the  result  of  the  Spanish 
American  trade  is  in  a  high  degree  unsatisfactory.  The  im 
ports  during  the  past  year  exceeded  two  hundred  and  twenty- 
five  millions,  while  the  exports  were  less  than  one  hundred  and 
twenty-five  millions  —  showing  a  balance  against  us  of  more 
than  one  hundred  millions  of  dollars.  But  the  money  does  not 
go  to  Spanish  America.  We  send  large  sums  to  Europe  in  coin 
or  its  equivalent  to  pay  European  manufacturers  for  the  goods 
which  they  send  to  Spanish  America.  We  are  but  paymasters 
for  this  enormous  amount  annually  to  European  factors. 

Cannot  this  condition  of  trade  in  great  part  be  changed? 
Cannot  the  market  for  our  products  be  greatly  enlarged  ?  We 
have  made  a  beginning  in  our  effort  to  improve  our  trade  rela 
tions  with  Mexico,  and  we  should  not  be  content  until  similar 
and  mutually  advantageous  arrangements  have  been  succes 
sively  made  with  every  nation  of  North  and  South  America. 
While  the  great  powers  of  Europe  are  steadily  enlarging  their 
colonial  domination  in  Asia  and  Africa  it  is  the  especial  prov 
ince  of  this  country  to  improve  and  expand  its  trade  with  the 
nations  of  America.  No  field  promises  so  much;  no  field  has 
been  cultivated  so  little.  Our  foreign  policy  should  be  an  * 
American  policy  in  its  broadest  and  most  comprehensive  sense 
—  a  policy  of  peace,  of  friendship,  of  commercial  enlargement. 

The  name  of  American,  which  belongs  to  us  in  our  National 
capacity,  must  always  exalt  the  just  pride  of  patriotism.     Citi- 


430  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

zenship  of  the  Republic  must  be  the  panoply  and  safeguard  of 
him  who  wears  it.  The  American  citizen,  rich  or  poor,  native 
or  naturalized,  white  or  colored,  must  everywhere  walk  secure 
in  his  personal  and  civil  rights.  The  Republic  should  never 
accept  a  lesser  duty,  it  can  never  assume  a  nobler  one,  than 
the  protection  of  the  humblest  man  who  owes  it  loyalty  —  pro 
tection  at  home,  arid  protection  which  shall  follow  him  abroad, 
into  whatever  land  he  may  go  upon  a  lawful  errand. 

I  recognize,  not  without  regret,  the  necessity  for  speaking  of 
two  sections  of  our  common  country.  But  the  regret  dimin 
ishes  when  I  see  that  the  elements  which  separated  them  are 
fast  disappearing.  Prejudices  have  yielded  and  are  yielding, 
while  a  growing  cordiality  warms  the  Southern  and  the  North 
ern  heart  alike.  Can  any  one  doubt  that  between  the  sections 
confidence  and  esteem  are  to-day  more  marked  than  at  any 
period  in  the  sixty  years  preceding  the  election  of  President 
Lincoln  ?  This  is  the  result  in  part  of  time  and  in  part  of 
Republican  principles  applied  under  the  favorable  conditions 
of  uniformity.  It  would  be  a  great  calamity  to  change  these 
influences  under  which  Southern  Commonwealths  are  learning 

o 

to  vindicate  civil  rights,  and  adapting  themselves  to  the  condi 
tions  of  political  tranquillity  and  industrial  progress.  If  there 
be  occasional  outbreaks  in  the  South  against  this  peaceful 
progress,  the  public  opinion  of  the  country  regards  them  as 
exceptional  and  hopefully  trusts  that  each  will  prove  the 
last. 

Any  effort  to  unite  the  Southern  States  upon  issues  that  grow 
out  of  the  memories  of  the  war,  will  summon  the  Northern 
States  to  combine  in  the  assertion  of  that  nationality  which 
was  their  inspiration  in  the  civil  struggle.  Thus  great  ener 
gies  which  should  be  united  in  a  common  industrial  develop 
ment  will  be  wasted  in  hurtful  strife.  The  Democratic  party 
shows  itself  a  foe  to  Southern  prosperity  by  always  invoking 
and  urging  Southern  political  consolidation.  Such  a  policy 
quenches  the  rising  instinct  of  patriotism  in  the  heart  of  the 
Southern  youth  ;  it  revives  and  stimulates  prejudice ;  it  sub 
stitutes  the  spirit  of  barbaric  vengeance  for  the  love  of  peace, 
progress,  and  harmony. 


MR.  BLAINE  ACCEPTS  THE  NOMINATION  IN   1884.     431 

The  general  character  of  the  civil  service  of  the  United 
States  under  all  Administrations  of  the  Government  has  been 
honorable.  In  the  one  supreme  test  —  the  collection  and  dis 
bursement  of  revenue  —  the  record  of  fidelity  has  never  been 
surpassed  in  any  nation.  With  the  almost  fabulous  sums  which 
were  received  and  paid  during  the  late  war,  scrupulous  integ 
rity  was  the  prevailing  rule.  Indeed,  throughout  that  trying 
period,  it  can  be  said  to  the  honor  of  the  American  name,  that 
unfaithfulness  and  dishonesty  among  civil  officers  were  as  rare 
as  misconduct  and  cowardice  on  the  field  of  battle. 

The  growth  of  the  country  has  continually  and  necessarily 
enlarged  the  civil  service,  until  now  it  includes  a  great  body  of 
officers.  Rules  and  methods  of  appointment  which  prevailed 
when  the  number  was  smaller  have  been  found  insufficient  and 
impracticable,  and  earnest  efforts  have  been  made  to  separate 
the  mass  of  ministerial  officers  from  partisan  influence  and 
personal  control.  Impartiality  in  the  mode  of  appointment  to 
be  based  on  qualification,  and  security  of  tenure  to  be  based  on 
faithful  discharge  of  duty,  are  the  two  ends  to  be  accomplished. 
The  public  business  will  be  aided  by  separating  the  Legislative 
branch  of  the  Government  from  all  control  of  appointments 
and  the  Executive  will  be  relieved  by  subjecting  appointments 
to  fixed  rules  and  thus  removing  them  from  the  caprice  of 
favoritism.  But  there  should  be  rigid  observance  of  the  law 
which,  in  all  cases  of  equal  competency,  gives  the  preference  to 
the  soldiers  who  risked  their  lives  in  defense  of  the  Union. 

I  entered  Congress  in  1863,  and  in  a  somewhat  prolonged 
service  I  never  found  it  expedient  to  request  or  recommend  the 
removal  of  a  civil  officer  except  in  four  instances,  and  then  for 
non-political  reasons  which  were  instantly  conclusive  with  the 
appointing  power.  The  officers  in  the  district,  appointed  by 
Mr.  Lincoln  in  1861  upon  the  recommendation  of  my  predeces 
sor,  served,  as  a  rule,  until  death  or  resignation.  I  adopted  at 
the  beginning  of  my  service  the  test  of  competitive  examination 
for  appointments  to  West  Point  and  maintained  it  so  long  as  I 
had  the  right  by  law  to  nominate  a  cadet.  In  the  case  of  many 
officers  I  found  that  the  present  law  which  arbitrarily  limits  the 
term  of  the  commission  offered  a  constant  temptation  to  changes 
for  mere  political  reasons.  I  have  publicly  expressed  the  belief 


432  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

that  the  essential  modification  of  that  law  would  be  in  many 
respects  advantageous. 

My  observation  in  the  Department  of  State  confirmed  the 
conclusions  of  my  Legislative  experience,  and  impressed  me  with 
the  conviction  that  the  rule  of  impartial  appointment  might 
with  advantage  be  carried  beyond  any  existing  provision  of  the 
Civil  Service  Law.  It  should  be  applied  to  appointments  in 
the  consular  service.  Consuls  should  be  commercial  sentinels 
—  encircling  the  globe  with  watchfulness  for  their  country's 
interests.  Their  intelligence  and  competency  become,  there 
fore,  matters  of  great  public  concern.  No  man  should  be  ap 
pointed  to  an  American  consulate  who  is  not  well  instructed 
in  the  history  and  resources  of  his  own  country,  and  in  the 
requirements  and  language  of  commerce  in  the  country  to 
which  he  is  sent.  The  same  rule  should  be  applied  even  more 
rigidly  to  Secretaries  of  Legation  in  our  Diplomatic  service. 
The  people  have  the  right  to  the  most  efficient  agents  in  the 
discharge  of  public  business  and  the  appointing  power  should 
regard  this  as  the  prior  and  ulterior  consideration. 

Religious  liberty  is  the  right  of  every  citizen  of  the  Repub 
lic.  Congress  is  forbidden  by  the  Constitution  to  make  any 
law  "  respecting  the  establishment  of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the 
free  exercise  thereof."  For  a  century,  under  this  guarantee, 
Protestant  and  Catholic,  Jew  and  Gentile,  have  worshiped  God 
according  to  the  dictates  of  conscience.  But  religious  liberty 
must  not  be  perverted  to  the  justification  of  offenses  against  the 
law.  A  religious  sect,  strongly  intrenched  in  one  of  the  Terri 
tories  of  the  Union,  and  spreading  into  four  other  Territories, 
claims  the  right  to  destroy  the  safeguard  and  muniment  of  social 
order,  and  to  practice  as  a  religious  privilege  that  which  is  a 
crime  punished  with  severe  penalty  in  every  State  of  the  Union. 
The  sacred  unity  of  the  family  must  be  preserved  as  the  foun 
dation  of  all  civil  government,  as  the  source  of  orderly  adminis 
tration,  as  the  surest  guarantee  of  moral  purity. 

The  claim  of  the  Mormons  that  they  are  divinely  authorized 
to  practice  polygamy  should  no  more  be  admitted  than  the  claim 
of  certain  heathen  tribes,  if  they  should  come  among  us,  to  con 
tinue  the  rite  of  human  sacrifice.  The  law  does  not  interfere 


MR.  ELAINE  ACCEPTS  THE  NOMINATION  IN   1884.     433 

with  what  a  man  believes.  It  takes  cognizance  only  of  what  he 
does.  As  citizens,  the  Mormons  are  entitled  to  the  same  civil 
rights  as  others  and  to  these  they  must  be  confined.  Polygamy 
ought  never  to  receive  National  toleration  by  the  admission 
of  a  community  that  upholds  it,  as  a  State  in  the  Union.  The 
Mormons  must  learn,  as  others  have  learned,  that  the  liberty  of 
the  individual  ceases  where  the  rights  of  society  begin. 

The  people  of  the  United  States,  though  often  urged  and 
tempted,  have  never  seriously  contemplated  the  recognition  of 
any  other  money  than  gold  and  silver  —  and  currency  directly 
convertible  into  them.  They  have  not  done  so,  they  will  not 
do  so,  under  any  necessity  less  pressing  than  that  of  desperate 
war.  The  one  special  requisite  for  the  completion  of  our 
monetary  system  is  the  fixing  of  the  relative  values  of  silver 
and  gold.  The  large  use  of  silver  as  the  money  of  account 
among  Asiatic  nations,  taken  in  connection  with  the  increasing 
commerce  of  the  world,  gives  the  weightiest  reasons  for  an 
international  agreement  in  the  premises.  Our  Government 
should  not  cease  to  urge  this  measure  until  a  common  stand 
ard  of  value  shall  be  established  —  a  standard  that  shall  enable 
the  United  States  to  use  the  silver  from  its  mines  as  an  aux 
iliary  to  gold  in  settling  the  balances  of  Commercial  ex 
change. 

The  strength  of  the  Republic  is  increased  by  the  multiplica 
tion  of  land-holders.  Our  laws  should  look  to  the  judicious 
encouragement  of  actual  settlers  on  the  public  domain,  which 
should  henceforth  be  held  as  a  sacred  trust  for  the  benefit  of 
those  seeking  homes.  The  tendency  to  consolidate  large  tracts 
of  land  in  the  ownership  of  individuals  or  corporations  should 
be  discouraged.  One  hundred  thousand  acres  of  land  owned  by 
one  man  is  far  less  profitable  to  the  Nation  than  when  its  owner 
ship  is  divided  among  one  thousand  men.  The  evil  of  permit 
ting  large  tracts  of  the  National  domain  to  be  controlled  by  the 
few  against  the  many  is  enhanced  when  the  persons  controlling 
it  are  aliens.  It  is  but  fair  that  the  public  land  should  be  dis 
posed  of  only  to  actual  settlers  and  to  those  who  are  citizens, 
of  the  Republic,  or  willing  to  become  so. 


434  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

Among  our  National  interests  one  languishes  —  the  foreign 
carrying-trade.  It  was  very  seriously  crippled  in  our  civil  war, 
and  another  blow  was  given  to  it  in  the  general  substitution  of 
steam  for  sail  in  ocean  traffic.  With  a  frontage  on  the  two 
great  oceans,  with  a  freightage  larger  than  that  of  any  other 
nation,  we  have  every  inducement  to  restore  our  navigation. 
Yet  the  Government  has  hitherto  refused  its  help.  A  small 
share  of  the  encouragement  given  to  railways  and  to  manufac 
tures,  and  a  small  share  of  the  capital  and  the  zeal  given  by  our 
citizens  to  those  enterprises,  would  have  carried  our  ships  to 
every  sea.  A  law  just  enacted  removes  some  of  the  burdens 
upon  our  navigation  and  inspires  hope  that  this  great  interest 
may  at  last  receive  its  due  share  of  attention.  All  efforts  in 
this  direction  should  receive  encouragement. 

This  survey  of  our  condition  as  a  Nation  reminds  us  that 
material  prosperity  is  but  a  mockery  if  it  does  not  tend  to  pre 
serve  the  liberty  of  the  people.  A  free  ballot  is  the  safeguard 
of  Republican  institutions,  without  which  National  welfare  is 
not  assured.  A  popular  election,  honestly  conducted,  embodies 
the  very  majesty  of  true  government.  Ten  millions  of  voters 
desire  to  take  part  in  the  pending  contest.  The  safety  of  the 
Republic  rests  upon  the  integrity  of  the  ballot,  upon  the  security 
of  suffrage  to  the  citizen.  To  deposit  a  fraudulent  vote  is  no 
worse  a  crime  against  Constitutional  liberty  than  to  obstruct 
the  deposit  of  an  honest  vote.  He  who  corrupts  suffrage  strikes 
at  the  very  root  of  free  government.  He  is  the  arch-enemy  of 
the  Republic.  He  forgets  that  in  trampling  upon  the  rights  of 
others  he  fatally  imperils  his  own  rights.  "  It  is  a  good  land 
which  the  Lord  our  God  doth  give  us,"  but  we  can  maintain 
our  heritage  only  by  guarding  with  vigilance  the  source  of 
popular  power. 

I  am  with  great  respect, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

JAMES    G.  BLAIXE. 


SPEECHES  DURING  THE  CANVASS  OF  1884.  435 


SPEECHES    BEFORE    THE    PEOPLE     DURING    THE 
PRESIDENTIAL    CANVASS    OF    1884. 


[During  the  campaign  of  1884  Mr.  Elaine  made  a  tour  through  several  States 
in  the  course  of  wh.ch  —  lasting  in  all  some  six  weeks  —  he  spoke  more  than 
four  hundred  times  tc  assemblies  of  the  people.  The  speeches  were  necessarily 
brief.  A  small  selection  of  them  are  here  given.] 


[At  the  Worcester  County,  Massachusetts,  Agricultural  Fair,  Sept.  18, 1884.] 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN,  —  I  am  sure  that,  under  this  rich 
autumn  sun  and  in  this  prosperous  State,  you  will  expect  from 
me  to-day  nothing  but  words  of  congratulation.  If  there  be 
any  one  spot  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States  which  may 
challenge  all  others  in  wealth,  contentment,  and  general  happi 
ness,  it  must  be  Worcester,  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts. 
We  are  accustomed,  without  looking  closely  at  figures,  to  think 
of  some  of  the  rich  sections  of  Europe  as  far  more  populous 
than  any  portion  of  this  country  ;  but  in  the  United  Kingdom 
of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  outside  the  counties  of  Middlesex 
and  Surry  there  is  not  so  dense  a  population  as  inhabits  Massa 
chusetts  from  this  point  to  the  sea ;  there  is  not  in  the  crowded 
Kingdom  of  Belgium,  not  even  in  that  hive  of  industry  — 
Holland  —  so  dense  a  population  as  you  on  this  ground  repre 
sent  to-day.  When  we  compare  the  comfort  and  thrift  of  the 
entire  people,  there  is  not,  perhaps,  on  this  circling  globe  a 
community  with  which  Worcester  County  cannot  stand  the 
test.  In  the  West,  on  those  rich  lands  which  "  laugh  a  crop  when 
tickled  with  a  hoe,"  in  that  "boundless  contiguity"  of  space  in 
which  the  agricultural  district  stretches  from  the  crest  of  the 
Alleghenies  to  the  Great  Plains,  it  will  be  a  surprise  to  them, 
if  it  is  not  to  you,  that  this  county  of  Worcester,  out  of  more 


436  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

than  seventeen  hundred  counties  that  make  up  the  United 
States,  is  the  fifteenth  in  the  Union  in  the  value  of  its  agricul 
tural  products ;  and  what  is  even  more  surprising  is  the  fact 
that,  standing  in  this  high  rank  in  agricultural  industry  and 
agricultural  product,  it  stands  still  higher  in  mechanical  indus 
try  and  in  manufactures.  In  that  list  it  stands  tenth  in  the 
United  States.  So  that  when  you  come  to  estimate  the  $3,500,- 
000,000  product  of  agriculture  and  the  $6,000,000,000  product 
of  manufactures  in  a  single  year  in  the  United  States,  you  can 
see  what  must  be  the  magnificent  prosperity  of  this  county  that 
enables  it  to  stand  fifteenth  in  the  one  list  and  tenth  in  the 
other.  Gentlemen,  this  county  has  been  long  noted.  It  is 
the  county  best  known  in  the  State  —  and  so  widely  known 
throughout  the  Union  that  if  any  county  in  this  country  were 
to  be  presented  as  the  exemplar,  the  one  illustration  of  what 
free  industry,  and  free  schools,  and  free  suffrage  could  do, 
there  would  be  a  unanimous  voice  in  favor  of  presenting  the 
county  of  Worcester  as  that  exemplar.  We  in  Maine  are  some 
times  a  little  jealous  of  you  in  Massachusetts  —  perhaps  it  is 
only  because  of  your  superior  prosperity ;  but  outside  and  be 
yond  that  jealousy  I  am  here  to  say  on  behalf  of  the  State, 
which  was  formerly  a  part  of  the  old  Commonwealth,  that  for 
the  county  of  Worcester,  for  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  no 
other  feeling  is  entertained  than  that  of  respect  and  honor. 

[At  Hamilton,  O.,  on  the  1st  of  October,  1884.] 

CITIZENS  OF  OHIO,  —  It  is  now  forty  years  since  the  question 
of  a  Protective  tariff  engaged  the  attention  of  the  American  peo 
ple  as  profoundly  as  it  does  to-day.  It  was  in  the  contest  between 
Mr.  Clay  and  Mr.  Polk  in  1844  that  the  great  National  debate 
on  that  question  took  place.  The  Protective  tariff  was  defeated, 
not  by  the  popular  vote,  but  by  the  bad  faith  of  the  Democratic 
party  which  succeeded  in  the  election ;  and  I  beg  to  call  your 
attention  —  the  attention  of  a  large  manufacturing  population 
—  to  the  fact  that  the  policy  of  protecting  our  industries 
has  never  been  defeated  in  the  United  States  by  the  popular 
vote.  A  contrary  policy  has  been  forced  on  the  people  at  dif 
ferent  times  through  the  bad  faith  of  their  representatives,  but 
never,  I  repeat,  by  a  popular  vote,  upon  a  deliberate  appeal  to 


SPEECHES  DURING  THE  CANVASS  OF   1884.  437 

the  people  in  their  primary  capacity.  It  would  therefore  seem 
to  be  the  duty  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  if  by  a  ma 
jority  they  believe  in  the  policy  of  Protection,  to  see  to  it  that 
the  party  is  sustained  which  can  be  trusted  to  uphold  it.  Yes, 
but,  said  a  gentleman  to  me  yesterday,  "  Protection  does  not 
always  secure  abundant  prosperity ;  there  are  a  great  many  idle 
men  now  in  the  country."  Grant  it,  gentlemen !  There  has 
never  yet  been  a  policy  devised  by  the  wisdom  of  man  that  will 
insure  through  all  times  and  all  seasons  a  continuous  flow  of 
prosperity.  But  the  question  is  whether  over  a  given  series 
of  years  there  has  not  been  a  larger  degree  of  prosperity  to  the 
people  under  the  policy  of  Protection  than  under  the  policy  of 
Free  Trade.  The  question  is  to  be  tested  not  by  the  experi 
ence  of  a  single  year,  but  by  the  experience  of  a  series  of  years. 
We  have  had  a  Protective  tariff  now  for  more  than  two  decades, 
and  I  ask  you  whether  there  has  ever  been  another  period  in 
which  the  United  States  has  made  such  progress  as  during  the 
last  twenty  years  ? 

It  is  true  I  admit  that  now  and  then  there  will  come  a  lull 
and  a  re-action  in  business.  Adverse  changes  frequently  come 
even  under  the  laws  of  Nature.  You  are  suffering  from  a  pro 
tracted  drought  in  Ohio  this  year,  but  you  do  not  on  that 
account  avow  that  you  will  have  no  more  rains.  You  do  not 
fear  that  seed-time  and  harvest  will  fail !  On  the  contrary,  you 
are  the  more  firmly  persuaded  that  rain  is  the  only  element  that 
will  restore  fertility  to  your  soil,  verdure  to  your  fields,  richness 
to  your  crops.  So  in  this  little  slough,  this  temporary  dullness 
in  the  business  in  the  country,  the  one  great  element  that  can 
be  relied  on  to  restore  prosperity  is  the  Protective  tariff.  The 
question  is  one  which  Ohio  must  in  large  part  decide.  On  the 
fourteenth  day  of  this  month  you  will  have  an  opportunity  to 
tell  the  people  of  the  United  States  whether  you  believe  in 
the  policy  of  Protection.  If  you  do,  you  will  secure  not  only 
its  continuance,  but  its  permanent  triumph.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  you  should  falter  and  fall  back,  it  might  produce  disaster 
elsewhere.  The  responsibility  is  upon  you.  Is  your  courage 
equal  to  your  responsibility  ?  Is  your  confidence  equal  to  your 
courage  ? 


438  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

[At  Graf  ton,  West  Virginia,  on  the  6th  of  October,  1884.] 

CITIZENS  OF  WEST  VIRGINIA,  —  As  your  distinguished 
Chairman  has  intimated,  I  am  not  a  stranger  to  your  State.  I 
have  known  it  personally  I  might  say  all  my  life,  and  this  section 
of  it  I  have  known  well.  I  was  born  and  reared  on  the  banks  of 
yonder  river  a  few  miles  below  the  point  where  it  enters  Penn 
sylvania,  and  you  do  not  need  to  be  told  by  me  that  there  has 
always  been  good-fellowship  and  unity  of  feeling  among  the 
inhabitants  of  the  Monongahela  Valley.  But  I  have  not  seen 
in  my  journey  to-day,  I  do  not  see  around  me  and  before  me 
now  the  West  Virginia  which  I  knew  in  my  boyhood.  The 
West  Virginia  of  forty  years  ago  was  comparatively  a  wilder 
ness.  The  West  Virginia  of  to-day  is  a  prosperous  industrial 
centre  in  the  United  States,  with  great  lines  of  railways  and 
great  manufacturing  establishments.  West  Virginia,  as  an  in 
dependent  Commonwealth,  began  her  existence  during  the  civil 
war,  and  at  that  day  the  most  liberal  estimate  of  her  total  prop 
erty,  according  to  the  enumeration  of  the  United  States  census, 
did  not  exceed  1100,000,000.  In  1870  the  census  gave  you  an 
aggregate  of  $190,000,000,  and  in  1880  it  showed  that  you 
possessed  capitalized  wealth  to  the  amount  of  $350,000,000. 
From  the  close  of  the  war  to  the  year  1880,  a  period  of  only 
fifteen  years,  West  Virginia  had  therefore  gained  in  wealth  the 
enormous  sum  of  $250,000,000.  You  have  fared  pretty  well, 
therefore,  under  Republican  administration. 

Probably  some  political  opponent  does  me  the  honor  to  listen 
to  me,  and  I  would  ask  him,  as  a  candid  man,  what  agency  was 
it  that  nerved  the  arm  of  industry  to  smite  the  mountains  and 
create  this  wealth  in  West  Virginia  ?  It  was  the  Protective  tariff 
and  a  financial  system  that  gave  you  good  money  and  an  abun 
dant  currency.  Before  the  war  you  never  had  a  bank-bill  circu 
lating  in  West  Virginia  that  would  pass  current  five  hundred 
miles  from  home.  You  have  not  to-day  a  single  piece  of  paper 
money  circulating  in  West  Virginia  that  is  riot  good  all  around 
the  globe ;  not  a  bill  that  will  not  pass  as  readily  in  the  money 
markets  of  Europe  as  in  Wheeling,  Baltimore  or  New  York.  So 
that  the  man  who  works  for  wages  knows,  when  Saturday  night 
comes,  that  he  is  to  be  paid  for  his  week's  labor  in  good  money. 


SPEECHES  DURING  THE  CANVASS  OF   1884.  439 

Under  the  Protective  tariff  your  coal  industries,  and  your 
iron  industries,  and  the  wealth  of  your  forests  have  been 
brought  out,  and  it  is  for  you,  voters  of  West  Virginia,  to  say 
whether  you  wish  this  to  continue  or  whether  you  want  to  try 
Free  Trade.  I  make  bold  to  say,  with  all  respect,  that  there  is 
not  a  Democratic  statesman  on  the  stump  in  West  Virginia, 
conspicuous  enough  to  be  known  to  the  Nation  —  I  speak  only 
of  those  I  know  —  who  advocates  a  Protective  tariff ;  not  one. 
I  go  further  ;  I  do  not  know  a  Democratic  statesman  who  does 
not  hold  that  a  tariff  for  Protection  is  unconstitutional,  and, 
therefore,  as  honest  men  they  are  bound  to  oppose  it.  The 
Morrison  Tariff  Bill  would  have  struck  at  the  interests  of  West 
Virginia  in  many  vital  respects,  and  it  is  an  amazing  fact  that 
the  representatives  in  Congress  from  West  Virginia  voted  for 
that  bill.  There  is  a  good  old  adage  which  I  beg  to  recall  to 
your  minds,  that  God  helps  those  who  help  themselves,  and  if 
West  Virginia  is  not  willing  to  sustain  a  Protective  tariff  by 
her  vote  and  her  influence  she  must  not  expect  it  to  be  sus 
tained  for  her  by  others.  If  she  wants  the  benefit  of  a  Protec 
tive  tariff  she  must  give  to  a  Protective  tariff  the  benefit  of  her 
support.  If  she  is  not  willing  to  do  this  she  does  not  deserve 
the  prosperity  which  a  Protective  tariff  has  brought  and  is  still 
bringing  to  her. 

I  am  glad  that  I  am  addressing  a  Southern  audience  ;  I  am 
glad  to  exchange  views  with  a  community  that  were  slave 
holders  —  a  community  made  up  of  those  who  were  masters  and 
those  who  were  slaves.  But  I  am  addressing  a  slave  State  no 
longer.  I  am  appealing  to  the  new  South.  I  am  appealing  to 
West  Virginia  not  to  vote  upon  a  tradition  or  a  prejudice  ;  not 
to  keep  her  eyes  to  the  rear  and  to  the  past,  but  to  look  to  the 
front  and  to  the  future ;  and  if  I  could  be  heard  I  would  make 
the  same  appeal  to  other  Southern  States  —  to  old  Virginia,  to 
North  Carolina,  to  Georgia,  to  Alabama,  to  Tennessee,  and  to 
Louisiana.  They  are  all  interested  in  a  Protective  tariff,  and 
the  question  is,  which  do  they  prefer,  to  gratify  a  prejudice  or 
to  promote  general  prosperity?  West  Virginia  can  lead  the 
way :  she  can  break  this  seemingly  impregnable  barrier  of  the 
solid  South.  Solid  on  what  ?  Solid  on  a  prejudice  ;  solid  on  a 
tradition  ;  solid  upon  doctrines  that  separate  the  different  por- 


440  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

tions  of  the  Union.  I  invite  you  to  join  in  a  union  not  merely 
in  form,  but  in  fact :  I  invite  you  to  take  your  part  in  the 
solution  of  the  industrial  and  financial  problems  of  the  time. 
If  West  Virginia  takes  that  course  on  the  14th  of  October  she 
will  do  much  to  settle  the  controversies  that  now  agitate  the 
country. 

The  repeal  of  the  Protective  tariff,  as  proposed  by  the  terms 
of  the  Morrison  Bill,  would  cost  West  Virginia  a  vast  sum  of 
money.  Between  1870  and  1880  you  gained  in  this  State 
$160,000,000,  between  1880  and  1890  you  will  gain  much  more, 
with  a  tariff  for  Protection ;  but  I  ask  any  business  man  if  he 
believes  you  can  do  it  with  Free  Trade  ? 

Here  I  close  my  words  of  counsel,  leaving  the  action  to  you. 
I  leave  you,  I  trust,  not  as  a  community  influenced  by  sectional 
feeling,  but  as  a  community  broadly  National.  I  leave  you  as 
a  State  allied  on  this  side  to  Pennsylvania,  and  on  that  to 
Ohio,  as  much  as  you  are  on  the  other  sides  to  Virginia  and 
Kentucky.  I  leave  you  as  a  State  that  stands  in  the  van  of  the 
new  South,  inviting  the  whole  South  to  join  in  a  great  National 
movement  which  shall  in  fact  and  in  feeling,  as  well  as  in  form, 
make  us  a  people  with  one  union,  one  Constitution,  one  destiny. 

[At  Lancaster,  Ohio,  Oct.  11,  1884  ] 

MY  FRIENDS,  —  I  confess  that  in  this  place  and  at  this  time 
I  hardly  feel  disposed  to  make  any  allusion  to  public  affairs. 
The  recollections  that  rush  upon  me  as  I  stand  here  carry  me 
back  through  many  years,  to  a  time  before  the  majority  of 
those  who  now  hear  me  were  born.  In  1841  I  was  a  school 
boy  in  this  town,  attending  the  school  of  Mr.  William  Lyons, 
a  cultivated  English  gentleman  —  the  younger  brother  of  the 
then  Lord  Lyons,  and  uncle  of  the  late  British  Minister  at 
Washington.  He  taught  the  youth  of  this  vicinity  with  great 
success,  with  thoroughness,  and  with  refinement.  I  know  not 
whether  he  be  living,  but  if  he  is  I  beg  to  make  my  acknowl 
edgments  to  him,  if  these  words  may  reach  him,  for  his  effi 
ciency  and  excellence  as  an  instructor.  As  I  look  upon  your 
faces  I  am  carried  back  to  those  days,  to  Lancaster  as  it  then 
was.  In  that  row  of  dwellings  on  the  opposite  side  of  the 
street,  in  one  of  which  I  then  lived  and  am  now  a  guest,  resided 


SPEECHES  DURING  THE  CANVASS  OF   1884.  441 

at  that  time  the  three  leading  lawyers  of  Ohio  —  Thomas 
Ewing,  Henry  Stanbury,  and  Hocking  Hunter.  I  vividly 
recall  their  persons  and  their  peculiarities. 

A  few  months  before  there  had  come  home  from  West  Point 
a  tall  and  very  slender  young  man,  straight  as  an  arrow,  with 
a  sharp  face  and  a  full  suit  of  red  hair.  His  name  was 
Sherman,  and  he  had  in  his  pocket  an  order  to  join  the  army  in 
Florida.  You  have  heard  of  him  since.  You  have  heard  of 
him,  and  he  will  be  heard  of  as  long  as  the  march  through 
Georgia  holds  its  place  in  history ;  he  will  be  heard  of  as  long 
as  lofty  character  and  military  genius  are  esteemed  among 
men. 

About  the  same  time,  from  a  country  town  to  the  south-west 
of  this  place,  there  was  sent  to  West  Point  a  sturdy,  strong- 
headed  youth  who  was  also  heard  of  in  the  war,  and  whose 
fame  has  since  encircled  the  globe.  His  name  is  Ulysses  S. 
Grant. 

In  the  adjoining  county  of  Perry,  twenty  miles  perhaps  from 
this  spot,  there  lived  a  short,  stout  boy,  who  has  since  become 
known  to  the  world  as  Phil  Sheridan.  Combative,  yet  gentle 
in  nature,  he  achieved  a  reputation  not  unlike  that  which  Ney 
attained  in  the  Napoleonic  wars.  So  that  Ohio  was  then  pre 
paring  military  leaders  for  great  contingencies,  for  unforeseen 
crises. 

I  remember  another  youth  of  this  town  —  slender,  tall, 
stately  —  who  had  just  left  school,  when  I  came  here  from  my 
home  across  the  Pennsylvania  line,  and  who  had  begun  as  a 
civil  engineer  on  the  Muskingum  River  improvements.  You 
have  since  heard  of  him  too.  His  name  is  John  Sherman. 

At  that  time  this  town  seemed  to  my  boyish  vision  to  be  the 
centre  of  the  universe,  and  my  idea  was  that  the  world  was 
under  deep  obligation  for  being  permitted  to  revolve  around 
Lancaster.  I  recall  those  scenes  with  peculiar  pleasure.  I 
recall  my  early  attachment  and  love  for  this  town,  and  for  the 
friends  and  the  kindred  that  were  in  it  —  some  of  whom  near 
to  me  in  blood  were  here  when  Arthur  St.  Clair  was  Governor 
of  the  North-west  Territory,  and  some  of  whom  are  here  still. 
When  I  think  of  those  days,  and  of  the  deep  attachments  I 
inherited  and  have  since  maintained,  I  feel  more  like  dwelling 


442  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

upon  old  stories  and  old  scenes,  than  talking  about  the  political 
contests  of  to-day. 

But,  my  friends,  these  things  are  gone  by  for  more  than  forty 
years,  and  a  new  generation  of  men  meet  here  in  a  new  era, 
under  new  responsibilities.  We  meet  upon  the  eve  of  an  impor 
tant  election,  and  the  people  of  Ohio,  as  is  their  wont  and  as 
has  been  their  fortune,  are  placed  in  the  vanguard  of  the  fight. 
I  am  satisfied  that  on  Tuesday  next  you  will  show,  as  you  have 
shown  in  preceding  Presidential  years,  that  Ohio  is  fit  to  be 
intrusted  with  the  responsibility  of  leadership  in  a  National 
contest.  I  do  not  stop  to  argue  any  question :  the  time  for 
argument  has  passed.  I  do  not  stop  even  to  appeal  to  you ; 
the  appeal  has  been  made.  I  stop  only  to  remind  you  that  if 
you  do  your  duty  on  Tuesday  next  as  becomes  men  of  your 
lineage  and  your  inheritance,  the  Republican  administration  of 
this  Government  will  be  continued  ;  the  Protective  tariff  will  be 
upheld ;  the  patriotism  and  the  fruits  of  the  civil  struggle  will 
be  maintained,  and  the  Government  of  the  Union,  preserved  by 
the  loyalty  of  the  Union,  will  continue  to  be  administered  in 
loyalty  to  the  Union.  Good-night. 

[At  Flint,  Michigan,  Oct.  16,  1884.] 

FELLOW-CITIZENS,  —  I  have  received  since  I  have  been  in 
this  State,  two  or  three  letters  from  persons  asking  me  to  say 
in  public  whether  I  had  ever  been  a  member  of  the  Know-Noth 
ing  party.  In  connection  with  these  inquiries  from  persons  in 
Michigan  I  have  received  several  telegrams  from  the  Pacific 
coast  asking  whether  I  was  not  a  supporter  of  Mr.  Fillmore 
when  he  ran  in  1856  as  the  Native  American  candidate  for  the 
Presidency.  Let  me  say,  in  full  and  explicit  reply  to  these  in 
quiries  by  letter  and  telegraph,  that  I  never  was  a  member  of 
the  Know-No  thing  order ;  that  I  never  voted  for  a  man  who 
was  nominated  by  it,  either  for  a  State  or  for  a  National  office ; 
and  that  instead  of  supporting  Mr.  Fillmore  in  1856,  when  I 
was  a  young  man  of  twenty-six  I  had  the  honor  to  be  a  member 
of  the  National  Republican  Convention  which  nominated  Gen 
eral  Fremont,  and  as  the  General  is  now  on  this  platform,  he 
will  be  able  to  bear  testimony  that,  however  inefficient  my  sup 
port  may  have  been,  it  was  very  earnest  and  very  ardent.  I 


SPEECHES  DURING  THE  CANVASS  OF   1884.  443 

was  then  the  junior  editor  of  the  Kennebec  Journal,  and  the 
paper  was  entirely  devoted  to  General  Fremont's  advocacy,  and 
aided  in  giving  him  the  largest  majority  ever  cast  in  Maine  for 
a  Presidential  candidate  of  any  party.  The  Know-Nothing 
order  holds  views  in  regard  to  immigration  and  naturalization 
from  which  I  never  hesitated  to  express  dissent. 

But  while  I  am  on  that  subject,  I  wish  to  say  that  there 
are  at  least  three  wrongs  in  connection  with  European  immigra 
tion  which,  in  my  judgment,  require  correction. 

First,  I  think  that  the  habit  which  has  grown  up  on  the  part 
of  some  European  countries  of  sending  their  paupers  to  the 
United  States  ought  not  to  be  longer  tolerated.  I  believe  in 
the  good  old  American  system  which  requires  that  each  town 
or  each  county  shall  take  care  of  its  own  poor.  If  the  laws  of 
European  countries  tend  to  impoverish  their  working-people 
those  countries  ought  to  ta^ke  care  of  them  when  reduced  to 
want,  instead  of  shipping  them  to  us. 

Second,  And  still  more  objectionable  is  the  practice  of  ship 
ping  their  criminals  to  us,  as  has  been  done,  criminals  being  in 
many  cases  released  from  punishment  on  condition  that  they 
shall  come  to  the  United  States.  I  think  that  is  a  very  grave 
offense  against  this  country  which  should  not  be  permitted  but 
should  on  the  contrary  be  resented  and  forbidden. 

Third,  If  a  tariff  for  protection  is  designed  to  elevate  the 
laboring-man  of  this  country  and  secure  him  good  wages  —  and 
if  it  is  not  for  that  it  is  not  for  any  thing  —  then  I  think  the 
custom  which  some  men  are  trying  to  introduce  of  importing 
cheap  contract  labor  from  foreign  countries  to  compete  with 
home  labor  ought  to  be  prohibited.  It  is  a  species  of  servitude, 
against  the  spirit  of  our  laws,  and  injures  all  who  are  in  any 
way  connected  with  it. 

These  are  three  evils  which  I  think  should  be  remedied.  But, 
as  to  every  honest  immigrant  seeking  to  better  his  condition, 
whether  he  come  from  the  British  Isles  or  from  the  great  Ger 
man  Empire,  from  the  sunny  climes  of  the  Latin  nations,  or 
from  the  brave  Scandinavian  races  of  the  North,  we  bid  him 
God-speed  and  give  him  hearty  welcome  and  hospitality ;  and, 
when  he  is  admitted  to  citizenship,  we  assure  him  protection  at 
home  and  abroad.  Once  among  us  and  of  us,  his  rights  are 


444  POLITICAL  DISCUSSION'S. 

equal  before  the  law  with  those  of  the  native-born  citizen.  No 
distinction  can  be  tolerated  among  those  who  are  clothed  with 
the  honor  of  American  citizenship. 

[At  Ann  Arbor,  to  the  students  of  Michigan  University,  Oct.  18,  1884.] 

DURING  the  war  we  used  to  hear  much  about  the  rebel  yell. 
It  was  said  to  imply  great  vigor  and  determination,  but  it  seems 
to  me  that  the  young  men  of  Michigan  University  who  do  me 
the  honor  to  appear  here  to-day  could  have  terrified  the  whole 
army  of  Lee.  But  I  am  glad  to  witness  it  and  hear  it,  for  it 
implies  the  enthusiasm  and  strength  of  youth;  and  from  the 
youth  of  the  country  the  Republican  party  is  constantly  re 
cruited.  What  we  lose  from  desertion  and  disappointment  and 
dissatisfaction  on  the  part  of  the  elders  is  far  more  than  made 
up  —  yea,  fourfold  made  up  —  by  the  young  men  of  the  country 
who  are  just  coming  into  active  life,  I  wish  to  leave  with  these 
young  collegians  a  problem  in  relation  to  the  leading  industrial 
issue  of  the  time  —  a  problem  which  will  confront  them  in  their 
future  careers  —  that  is,  to  find  out  why  so  many  college  youths 
who  are  Free-Traders  at  twenty  become  Protectionists  at  forty? 
I  think  the  answer  will  be  found  in  the  fact  that  at  forty  they 
have  taken  degrees  in  the  university  of  experience,  which,  after 
all,  is  much  wider  than  the  university  of  theory  in  which  our 
college  boys  are  taught.  I  was  myself  taught  when  I  was  in 
college  the  doctrine  of  Free  Trade,  but  the  United  States  stands 
as  a  perpetual  and  irrefutable  argument  and  example  of  the 
value  of  Protection  to  Home  industries  in  a  new  country. 

I  am  glad  to  meet  you  —  not  merely  as  those  interested  in  a 
political  campaign,  but  as  young  men  who  are  the  pride  and 
hope  of  the  country.  In  dealing  with  the  problems  of  the 
future  in  this  marvelous  experiment  of  a  people  governing 
themselves  by  free  and  universal  suffrage,  nothing  can  avail 
except  an  educated  and  constantly  corrected  public  opinion. 
I  wish  to  impress  upon  every  man  who  has  the  advantage  of  a 
collegiate  education  that  he  is  every  day  more  and  more  placed 
in  debt  to  his  country,  and  that  in  proportion  as  he  progresses 
in  knowledge  and  wisdom,  in  that  proportion  will  he  be  ex 
pected  to  pay  back  in  patriotic  labor  the  country  which  has 
nurtured  him.  I  congratulate  you  on  being  born  to  such 


SPEECHES  DURING  THE  CANVASS  OF   1884.  445 

opportunities,  to  a  harvest  that  is  ripe  for  the  reaper,  a  field 
that  is  continually  expanding.  By  the  time  you  have  your 
degrees  you  will  go  forth  to  the  battle  of  life  in  a  nation 
of  60,000,000  of  freemen.  You  go  forth,  each  of  you,  with  as 
good  an  opportunity  in  life  as  any  other  man  has,  and  you  go 
with  the  added  advantage  which  education  gives.  I  commend 
you  to  your  responsibility,  for  the  responsibilities  of  an  educated 
American  are  higher  and  deeper  and  broader  than  those  of  an 
educated  man  in  any  other  land ;  and  in  proportion  as  your 
opportunities  are  greater  will  you  be  held  to  sterner  account  in 
this  life  and  in  the  life  which  is  to  come. 

[At  South  Bend,  Indiana,  Oct.  18,  1884.] 

MEN  OF  INDIANA,  —  The  struggle  in  all  human  society  is 
first  for  bread.  It  is  idle  to  propound  fine  theories  to  a  man 
who  is  hungry;  it  is  idle  to  commend  a  political  principle  to 
one  who  is  in  need  of  shelter;  it  is  idle  to  talk  philosophy  to  one 
who  is  naked.  Food  and  clothing  are  the  primary  require 
ments  of  human  society,  the  primary  elements  of  human  prog 
ress,  and  to  secure  these  you  must  put  the  people  in  the  way 
of  earning  good  wages.  I  never  saw  any  man  moved  to  enthu 
siasm  b}^  silently  contemplating  the  prosperity  of  another 
while  he  himself  was  in  need.  To  move  him  you  must  make 
him  feel  that  he  can  win  prosperity  himself.  The  beginning 
of  wise  legislation,  therefore,  is  to  give  to  every  citizen  of 
the  land  a  fair  and  equal  chance,  to  leave  the  race  of  -life 
open  and  free  for  all.  What  agency  will  best  accomplish  that? 
What  legislation  will  most  tend  to  that  end  ?  Certainly  it  will 
not  tend  to  that  end  to  throw  open  our  ports  and  say,  Send 
ye  all  here  your  fabrics  made  by  the  cheapest  and  most  dis 
tressed  labor  of  Europe  in  order  that  our  rich  people  shall  have 
every  thing  at  the  lowest  price,  and  in  order  that  those  who 
are  not  rich,  but  who  are  just  opening  their  shops  and  building 
their  factories,  may  meet  a  ruinous  competition !  If  you  do 
that  you  cannot  spin  a  wheel  or  turn  a  lathe  in  these  manufac 
turing  establishments  which  I  see  on  all  hands  unless  you  can 
get  your  labor  at  the  European  prices. 

We  begin  just  there.  From  these  considerations  we  deduce 
the  conclusion  that  the  Protective  tariff  is  primarily  for  the 


446  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

benefit  of  the  laboring  man,  because,  if  you  consider  any  manu 
factured  article,  you  find  that  the  chief  constituent  element  in 
its  cost  is  the  labor.  In  many  cases  the  material  is  but  one  per 
cent  and  the  labor  is  ninety-nine  per  cent.  Therefore,  all  legis 
lation  of  a  Protective  character  is,  and  must  be,  mainly  for 
the  benefit  of  labor,  because  labor  is  the  principal  element  in  the 
cost  of  the  fabric.  Hence,  if  there  be  any  man  who  is  pre 
eminently  and  above  all  others  interested  in  the  tariff  it  is  the 
laboring  man. 

A  Protective  tariff  was  one  of  the  first  fruits  of  the  election 
of  Mr.  Lincoln.  We  have  had  it  for  more  than  twenty  years 
on  the  statute-book,  with  various  amendments  which  have  been 
added  from  time  to  time,  to  make  it  more  protective,  and  the 
result  is  that  all  history,  ancient,  modern  and  mediaeval,  may 
be  challenged  for  a  National  progress  like  unto  that  we  have 
made  since  1861.  I  am  merely  reciting  the  facts  and  figures 
of  your  assessors'  books  and  of  the  United  States  census  tables, 
when  I  say  that  in  the  last  twenty  years  of  the  history  of  this 
country  we  have  added  more  wealth,  twice  over,  than  we  had 
acquired  in  the  centuries  between  the  discovery  of  the  country 
by  Columbus  and  the  election  of  Abraham  Lincoln  to  the 
Presidency.  There  must  have  been  some  peculiar  and  potent 
agent  at  work  to  produce  this  great  result.  That  agent  was 
the  Protective  tariff  operating  to  nerve  the  arm  of  labor  and 
reward  it  fairly  and  liberally.  Whether  that  policy  shall  be  con 
tinued  or  whether  it  shall  be  abandoned  is  the  controlling  issue 
in  this  campaign.  All  other  questions  are  laid  aside  for  the 
time.  There  are  many  other  questions  which  are  worthy  of 
consideration,  but  two  weeks  from  Tuesday  next  we  shall  have 
an  election  in  every  State  in  the  Union,  to  determine  with 
reference  to  this  question,  the  character  of  the  next  Congress 
and  the  future  policy  of  the  Government.  You  have  before 
you  the  Republican  party,  pledged  to  sustain  the  Protective 
tariff,  and  illustrating  that  pledge  by  a  specific  and  consistent 
example,  extending  through  the  last  twenty-three  years.  You 
have  on  the  other  hand,  the  Democratic  party,  which  in  fifty- 
one  years  (since  1833)  has  never  in  a  single  instance  voted  for 
Protection,  and  never  controlled  a  Congress  in  which  it  did 
not  oppose  Protection. 


SPEECHES  DURING  THE  CANVASS  OF   1884.  447 

I  say,  therefore,  to  the  laboring  men  and  to  the  mechanics, 
some  of  whom  may  do  me  the  honor  to  listen  to  me,  your 
unions,  your  leagues,  all  those  Labor  associations  you  have 
formed  for  your  own  advantage  and  your  own  advancement, 
are  well  and  proper  in  their  way.  It  is  your  right  to  have  them 
and  to  administer  them  as  you  choose,  but  they  are  not  as 
strong  as  a  rope  of  sand  against  the  ill-paid  labor  of  Europe, 
if  you  take  away  the  Protective  tariff  which  is  now  your 
background  and  support.  Do  not  therefore  be  deluded  by  the 
idea  that  you  can  dispense  with  the  Protective  tariff  and  sub 
stitute  for  it  your  labor  unions.  I  do  not  distract  your  atten 
tion  with  any  other  question.  I  do  not  stop  to  dwell  upon 
the  great  issues  that  have  been  made  and  settled  by  the  Repub 
licans  within  the  last  twenty-three  years.  That  party  has  made 
a  deeper  and  more  serious  imprint  in  history  than  any  other 
political  organization  that  ever  was  charged  with  a  great  respon 
sibility  in  the  United  States,  and  it  is  the  patriotic  pride  of 
every  man  in  its  ranks  that  he  has  been  a  member  of  it  and  has 
shared  its  responsibilities,  its  triumphs,  its  honors. 

[At  Fort  Wayne,  Indiana,  Oct.  20,  1884.] 

CITIZENS  OF  INDIANA,  —  The  October  elections  in  Ohio  and 
West  Virginia  have  put  a  new  phase  on  the  National  contest, 
or  rather  they  have  reproduced  the  phase  of  former  years. 
The  Democratic  party,  as  of  old,  consider  now  that  they  have 
the  South  solid  again  ;  they  believe  that  they  are  sure  of  one 
hundred  and  fifty-three  Electoral  votes  from  the  sixteen  South 
ern  States,  and  they  expect,  or  they  hope,  or  they  dream,  that 
they  may  secure  New  York  and  Indiana  and  that  with  New  York 
and  Indiana  added  to  the  solid  South,  they  will  seize  the  Gov 
ernment  of  the  Nation.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  farmers,  the 
business  men,  the  manufacturers,  the  merchants,  the  mechanics, 
and,  last  of  all  and  most  of  all,  I  do  not  believe  that  the  soldiers 
of  Indiana  can  be  put  to  that  use.  I  do  not  believe  that  the 
men  who  added  lustre  and  renown  to  your  State  through  four 
years  of  brave  service  in  a  bloody  war  can  be  used  to  call  to 
the  administration  of  the  Government  the  men  who  organized 
the  Rebellion.  In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  the  Demo 
cratic  party  have  thirty-seven  members,  of  which  number  thirty- 


448  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

two  come  from  the  South.  Of  their  strength  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  the  majority  come  from  the  South,  and  now 
the  intention  is,  with  an  absolutely  solidified  Electoral  vote  from 
the  South,  added  to  the  votes  of  the  two  States  I  have  named, 
to  seize  the  Government  of  the  Union. 

That  seizure  means  a  great  deal,  my  friends ;  it  means  that 
as  the  South  furnishes  three-fourths  of  the  Democratic  strength, 
it  will  be  given  the  lead  and  control  of  the  Nation  in  event  of 
a  Democratic  triumph.  It  means  that  the  financial  and  indus 
trial  systems  of  the  country  shall  be  placed  under  the  direction 
of  the  South ;  that  the  currency,  the  banks,  the  tariff,  the  inter 
nal-revenue  laws  —  in  short,  that  the  whole  system  upon  which 
the  business  of  the  country  depends  shall  be  placed  under  the 
control  of  that  section.  It  means  that  the  Constitutional 
amendments  to  which  Southern  leaders  are  so  bitterly  opposed 
shall  be  enforced  only  so  far  as  they  may  believe  in  them ;  that 
the  National  credit  as  guaranteed  in  the  Fourteenth  Amend 
ment,  that  the  payment  of  pensions  to  the  soldiers  of  the  Union 
as  guaranteed  in  the  same  amendment,  shall  be  under  their 
control;  and  what  that  control  might  mean  can  be  measured 
by  the  bitterness  with  which  those  amendments  were  resisted 
by  the  Democrats  of  the  South.  There  is  not  one  measure  of 
banking,  of  tariff,  of  finance,  of  public  credit,  of  pensions,  not 
one  line  of  administration  upon  which  the  Government  is  con 
ducted  to-day,  to  which  the  Democrats  of  the  South  are  not 
recorded  as  hostile,  and  to  give  them  control  would  mean  a 
change  the  like  of  which  has  not  been  known  in  modern  times. 
It  would  be  as  if  the  dead  Stuarts  were  restored  to  the  throne 
of  England ;  as  if  the  Bourbons  should  be  invited  to  administer 
the  Government  of  the  French  Republic ;  as  if  the  Florentine 
Dukes  should  be  called  back  and  empowered  to  govern  the  new 
Kingdom  of  Italy  as  consolidated  under  Victor  Emanuel. 

Such  a  triumph,  fellow-citizens,  would,  in  the  end,  be  a  fear 
ful  misfortune  to  the  South  itself.  That  section,  under  the 
wise  administration  of  the  Government  by  the  Republican  party, 
has  been  steadily  and  rapidly  gaining  for  the  last  ten  years  in 
all  the  elements  of  material  prosperity.  It  has  added  enor 
mously  to  its  wealth  since  the  close  of  the  war,  and  has  shared 
fully  in  the  general  advance  of  the  country.  To  call  that  sec- 


SPEECHES  DURING  THE  CANVASS  OF   1884.  449 

» 

tion  now  to  the  Rulership  of  the  Nation  would  disturb  its  own 
social  and  political  economy,  would  rekindle  smouldering  pas 
sions,  and,  under  the  peculiar  leadership  to  which  it  would  be 
subjected,  it  would  organize  an  administration  of  resentment, 
of  reprisal,  of  revenge.  No  greater  misfortune  than  that  could 
come  to  the  Nation  or  to  the  South.  It  would  come  as  a  re-ac 
tion  against  the  progress  of  liberal  principles  in  that  section  — 
a  progress  so  rapid  that  the  Republicans  are  waging  earnest 
contests  in  those  States  whose  interests  are  most  demonstrably 
identified  with  the  policy  of  Protection  as  against  the  baleful 
spectacle  of  a  solid  South. 

I  am  sure  that  Indiana  will  protest,  and,  on  the  whole,  will 
conclude  to  stand  where  she  has  stood  in  the  past.  I  believe 
that  you  will  stand  where  you  stood  in  the  war ;  that  you  will 
stand  for  the  principles  and  the  policies  which  have  made  your 
State  rich  and  prosperous,  and  which  have  made  the  American 
Republic,  in  manufactures,  in  agriculture,  the  leading  Nation  of 
the  world,  not  merely  in  a  material  sense,  but  in  a  moral  and 
philanthropic  sense  —  a  country  in  which  every  man  has  as  good 
a  chance  as  every  other  man,  and  which,  among  other  great 
gifts,  bestows  absolutely  free  suffrage  and  free  education.  You 
enjoy  that  suffrage,  and  the  fourth  day  of  November  next  you 
are  to  say  for  which  party,  for  which  policy,  you  will  cast  your 
votes.  Not  for  me  personally.  I  am  not  speaking  for  myself. 
No  man  ever  met  with  a  misfortune  in  being  defeated  for  the 
Presidency,  while  men  have  met  great  misfortunes  in  being 
elected  to  it.  I  am  pleading  no  personal  cause.  I  am  pleading 
the  cause  of  the  American  people.  I  am  pleading  the  cause  of 
the  American  farmer,  the  American  manufacturer,  the  Ameri 
can  mechanic,  and  the  American  laborer  against  the  world.  I 
am  reproached  by  some  excellent  people  for  appearing  before 
these  multitudes  of  my  countrymen,  upon  the  ground  that  it  is 
inconsistent  with  the  dignity  of  the  office  for  which  I  am 
named.  I  do  not  feel  it  to  be  so.  There  is  not  a  courtier  in 
Europe  so  proud  but  that  he  is  glad  to  uncover  his  head  in  the 
presence  of  his  sovereign.  So  I  uncover  in  the  presence  of 
the  only  earthly  sovereignty  I  acknowledge,  and  bow  with 
pride  to  the  free  people  of  America. 


450  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

[At  Terre  Haute,  Indiana,  Oct.  23,  1884.] 

FELLOW-CITIZENS,  —  The  Southern  question,  as  for  years  it 
has  been  popularly  termed,  is  precipitated  into  this  canvass  by 
the  South  itself,  and  to  neglect  to  notice  it  would  be  to  over 
look  one  of  the  most  powerful  and  dangerous  factors  in  the 
National  contest.  To  understand  that  question  properly,  it 
should  be  remembered  that  politically  there  are  two  Souths, 
which  we  may  term  respectively  the  new  South  and  the  old 
South.  The  new  South  represents  the  awakened  liberal  senti 
ment  that  is  striving  for  the  industrial  development  of  that 
naturally  rich  section  of  the  Union  which  recognizes  the  neces 
sity  of  a  tariff  for  protection,  which  casts  the  bitter  memories  of 
the  civil  conflict  behind,  and  which  is  hopefully  struggling  in 
Virginia,  in  North  Carolina,  in  Tennessee,  for  better  things  than 
hate  and  vengeance  and  injustice.  This  element  includes  many 
men  who  served  in  the  Confederate  armies.  It  naturally  affili 
ates  with  the  Republican  party,  and  it  seeks  to  lead  the  people 
away  from  the  prejudices  of  the  past  to  a  contemplation  of  the 
majestic  future  which  wise  and  magnanimous  action  may  bring  to 
the  South,  in  common  with  the  North  and  with  the  entire  Union. 

The  old  South  represents  the  spirit  of  the  rebellion,  cher 
ishes  sentiments  of  sullen  discontent,  is  perpetually  re-affirm 
ing  its  faith  in  the  rightfulness  of  "the  Lost  Cause,"  is  full 
of  bitter  reproaches  against  those  who  triumphed  in  the  war 
for  the  Union,  regards  negro  suffrage  with  abhorrence,  main 
tains  "the  white  line"  as  the  proclamation  of  hostility  to 
the  colored  race,  and  is  ready  to  use  whatever  amount  of 
intimidation  or  violence  may  be  necessary  to  preserve  its  own 
political  and  personal  mastery  in  the  South.  It  is  unques 
tionably  dominant  in  all  the  old  slave  States,  and  is  in  open 
and  avowed  affiliation  with  the  Democratic  party  of  the  North. 
It  constitutes  three-fourths  of  the  electoral  strength  of  the 
Democratic  party  in  the  Nation,  and  in  the  event  of  Demo 
cratic  triumph  would  be  in  absolute  and  undisputed  control  of 
the  Government.  The  struggle  of  the  Republicans  is  for  the 
amelioration,  improvement,  and  progress  of  the  South,  as  well 
as  of  the  North,  but  they  are  confronted  everywhere  and 
resisted  everywhere  by  the  determined  and  hitherto  triumphant 
Southern  Democracy. 


SPEECHES  DURING  THE  CANVASS  OF   1884.  451 

The  aim  of  the  Democratic  party,  as  I  have  already  said,  is 
to  conjoin  the  Electoral  votes  of  New  York  and  Indiana  with 
the  Electoral  votes  of  the  sixteen  Southern  States ;  and  it  is  for 
New  York  and  Indiana  to  consider  just  what  that  means,  and 
where  it  would  carry  them.  New  York  has  a  greater  stake 
than  any  other  State  of  the  Union  in  maintaining  sound  prin 
ciples  of  government,  in  upholding  the  National  credit,  in 
perpetuating  the  financial  system  which  embodies  the  matured 
wisdom  of  the  last  twenty  years,  in  sustaining  the  Protective 
policy.  Indiana  has  a  stake  less  than  that  of  New  York  only 
as  her  population  and  wealth  are  less.  Do  the  citizens  of  those 
two  States  fully  comprehend  what  it  means  to  trust  the  national 
credit,  the  national  finances,  the  national  pensions,  the  Protec 
tive  system,  and  all  the  great  interests  which  are  under  the 
control  of  the  National  Government,  to  the  old  South,  with  its 
bitterness,  its  unreconciled  temper,  its  narrowness  of  vision,  its 
hostility  to  all  Northern  interests,  its  constant  longing  to  revive 
an  impossible  past,  its  absolute  incapacity  to  measure  the  sweep 
of  the  present  and  the  magnitude  of  our  future? 

The  North  and  the  South,  under  Republican  administration 
of  the  Government,  will  ultimately  come  into  harmonious  rela 
tions.  In  the  last  ten  years  great  progress  has  been  made 
toward  that  result,  and  the  next  ten  years  may  witness  the 
effacement  of  all  prejudices  and  hostilities  and  the  absolute 
triumph  of  just  and  magnanimous  policies.  But  all  prospects 
of  that  result  would  be  defeated  and  destroyed  by  giving  the 
old  South  possession  of  the  national  power.  Among  the  first  of 
the  baleful  effects  that  would  follow  would  be  the  crushing  out 
of  liberal  progress  in  the  South,  and  the  practical  nullification 
of  all  that  has  been  gained  by  the  reconstruction  laws  which 
followed  the  Rebellion.  The  people  of  New  York  and  the 
people  of  Indiana  are  now  asked  to  aid  in  bringing  about  that 
deplorable  result,  to  be  followed  by  the  abandonment  or  the 
reversal  of  the  financial  and  industrial  policies  under  which 
the  Nation  has  prospered  so  marvelously  since  the  close  of  the 
war.  I  cannot  believe  that  you  will  do  it,  because  such  a 
course  is  forbidden  by  every  instinct  of  patriotism,  as  well  as 
every  consideration  of  enlightened  self-interest  and  self-respect. 


452  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

[At  Milwaukee,  Oct.  27, 1884.] 

CITIZENS  OF  WISCONSIN,  —  The  Republican  party  had  its 
birth  in  the  North-West,  and  there  it  has  always  found  steady 
support.  The  five  great  Commonwealths  that  were  formed  from 
the  old  North-west  Territory  represent  to-day  an  empire  — 
an  empire  founded  in  1787,  but  an  empire  which  has  had  its 
greatest  growth  since  1861.  The  growth  of  that  imperial  sec 
tion  of  the  Union  has  been  most  rapid  under  Republican  admin 
istration  of  the  National  Government,  and  under  the  continuous 
influence  of  a  Protective  tariff.  In  the  last  twenty-three  years 
its  wealth  has  trebled.  In  the  next  twenty-three  years,  with  a 
Protective  tariff  in  operation,  its  wealth  will  increase  in  even 
greater  ratio.  I  do  not  come  here  at  this  late  clay  in  the 
National  campaign  to  argue  any  question.  I  come  merely  to 
recite  historic  facts,  and  leave  you  to  draw  the  inference.  The 
Protective  tariff  has  found  its  steady  friend  in  the  Republican 
party.  It  has  found  its  steady  foe  in  the  Democratic  party. 
Under  the  Protective  system,  agriculture,  manufactures,  and 
commerce  have  flourished  in  equal  degree ;  and  the  question 
now  before  the  voters  of  Wisconsin,  the  question  before  the 
voters  of  the  Nation,  is  whether  that  system  shall  be  abandoned, 
or  whether  it  shall  be  continued.  The  sixteen  States  of  the 
South  will  in  all  probability  vote  against  it.  It  remains  to  be 
seen  whether  a  sufficient  re-enforcement  can  be  obtained  from 
the  North  to  hand  over  the  Government  to  the  domination  of 
the  Free-trade  South. 

As  the  Republican  party  had  its  birth  in  the  North-West,  we 
come  to  you  now  for  a  re-baptism  in  the  original  faith,  and  for 
added  strength  to  the  prestige  of  the  party.  I  da  not  believe 
that  Wisconsin,  I  do  not  believe  that  Illinois,  I  do  not  believe 
that  Michigan,  I  do  not  believe  that  Indiana,  I  am  sure  that 
Ohio,  those  great  component  members  of  the  old  North-west 
Territory, — I  do  not  believe  that  any  of  them  can  be  induced 
to  undo  the  work  which  they  began  in  1854.  I  do  not  believe 
that  the  free  arms  and  the  free  hearts  of  the  great  free  North- 
West  can  be  used  to  turn  the  Government  of  this  nation  over 
to  the  men  who  sought  its  destruction.  In  that  faith  I  greet 
you.  In  that  faith  I  leave  you.  In  that  faith  I  thank  you  pro- 


SPEECHES  DURING  THE  CANVASS  OF  1884.  453 

foundly  for  a  reception  which  is  proportioned  to  the  grandeur 
of  your  empire  and  the  warmth  of  your  hearts. 

[A  large  number  of  German- Americans  waited  on  Mr.  Elaine  at  the  Grand 
Pacific  Hotel,  Chicago,  and  through  their  Chairman,  Professor  Kistler,  made  an 
address,  and  Mr.  Elaine  responded  as  follows:  —  ] 

PROFESSOR  AND  GERMAN-AMERICAN  CITIZENS  OF  CHI 
CAGO,  —  Any  tender  of  your  friendship  and  confidence  would 
be  welcome  and  grateful  to  my  feelings.  What  must  I  then 
say  of  one  that  is  so  eloquent  and  so  cordial  ?  I  am  not  un 
aware  in  meeting  you  that  there  has  been  an  effort  made  to 
prejudice  the  minds  of  German-American  citizens  against  me, 
but  I  never  feared  that  the  effort  would  succeed,  because 
the  one  great  distinction  of  the  German  mind  is  deliberation 
in  coming  to  a  conclusion,  thoroughness  of  investigation,  com 
plete  and  entire  justice  of  final  judgment.  I  recognize  the 
perfect  truthfulness  of  what  you  say  of  the  devotion  of  German- 
Americans  to  the  flag  of  the  country  and  the  nationality  they 
have  assumed.  I  have  long  been  acquainted  with  the  German 
character.  My  birth  and  my  rearing  in  Pennsylvania  made  me 
familiar  from  childhood  with  the  German  character,  with  its 
steadiness,  its  industry,  its  fidelity,  its  integrity,  its  truth  in 
friendship,  its  loyalty  to  Government.  Pennsylvania  owes  much 
to  her  German. population,  to  the  Muhlenbergs,  the  Heisters,  the 
Wolfs,  the  Snyders,  the  Markles,  the  Shunks,  who  have  illus 
trated  her  annals  and  with  whom  I  am  connected  by  ties  of 
good  will,  of  kindly  associations  inherited  through  five  genera 
tions  of  family  friendships  that  are  warm  and  cordial  to-day. 

When  on  my  Western  tour  I  reached  Ohio,  I  sought  conference 
with  German  fellow-citizens,  and  was  assured,  and  subsequent 
events  have  confirmed  the  assurance,  that  so  far  from  being 
hostile  to  me,  they  were,  as  I  had  a  right  to  expect  and  as  you 
so  eloquently  declare,  cordially  disposed  towards  me.  Thank 
ing  you  again  for  the  kindly  expressions  of  your  address  I  am 
glad  to  take  each  one  of  you  by  the  hand  in*token  of  friendship 
and  regard. 

[At  Binghamton,  New  York,  Oct.  28,  1884.] 

MY  FRIENDS  AND  FELLOW-CITIZENS,-—!  am  sure  that  no 
man  who  loves  the  American  Union  can  ever  visit  the  city  of 


454  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

Bingliamton  without  a  reverent  remembrance  of  Daniel  S. 
Dickinson,  and  no  man  who  was  contemporary  with  the  great 
civil  struggle  which  involved  the  fate  of  American  nationality 
can  ever  forget  the  strength,  the  encouragement,  and  enthusiasm 
which  Mr.  Dickinson  brought  to  the  loyal  cause  when  he  for 
sook  his  party  for  his  country.  -Not  precisely  in  the  same 
phase,  but  involving  like  issues,  is  the  contest  in  which  we  are 
engaged  to-day.  For  as  we  then  confronted  the  South  arrayed 
in  war  against  the  Union,  so  we  confront  it  now  in  an  attempt 
by  a  great  combination  to  seize  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  and  control  it  through  the  same  men  who  rebelled 
against  it.  The  reason  I  refer  to  that  here  and  now  is  that 
that  combination  will  be  absolutely  ineffective  unless  aided  by 
the  vote  of  New  York,  and  I  am  sure  that  the  county  of 
Broome  and  the  valley  of  the  Susquehanna  will  enter  an  in 
dignant  protest  against  taking  the  Empire  State  from  the  great 
cordon  of  free  States,  always  loyal  to  the  Union,  to  be  joined 
with  the  States  of  the  solidified  South. 

This  question,  fellow-citizens,  is  not  one  of  mere  sentiment. 
It  is  not  a  mere  question  of  patriotism.  It  is  a  question  of 
material  interest.  The  triumph  of  the  South  in  this  contest 
would  mean  the  triumph  of  Free  Trade  and  the  destruction  of 
the  Protective  system.  In  the  whole  history  of  that  marvelous 
prosperity  which  has  made  New  York  the  most  populous  and 
the  most  wealthy  State  in  the  Union,  you  have  never  made  any 
progress  comparable  to  that  which  you  have  made  since  1861. 
When  Mr.  Buchanan,  the  last  Democratic  President,  went  out 
of  office  the  wealth  of  New  York  was  $1,800,000,000  as  shown 
by  the  National  census.  Twenty  years  later,  under  a  continu 
ous  Protective  tariff,  the  enactment  of  which  was  the  first  work 
of  the  Republican  party  after  it  gained  power,  your  progress 
had  been  so  rapid  that  your  wealth  had  advanced  from  $1,800,- 
000,000  to  $6,300,000,000,  as  shown  by  the  census  of  1880.  No 
such  progress  was  ..ever  made  before  in  the  history  of  human 
government.  And  there  is  not  an  intelligent  man  of  any  party 
who  does  not  know  that  that  progress  was  in  large  measure  due 
to  the  influence  of  the  Protective  tariff.  New  York  is  not  in 
my  opinion  ready  to  give  it  up.  New  York  is  not  ready  to  join 
the  solid  South  for  Free  Trade.  New  York  is  ready  to  stand 


SPEECHES  DURING  THE  CANVASS  OF  1884.  455 

by  the  Republican  party  and  Protective  tariff.  I  am  sure  that 
you  realize  your  responsibility  and  need  no  stimulus  from  words 
of  mine. 

[At  a  dinner  given  by  prominent  Republicans  of  New  York  at  Delmonico's, 
Oct.  29,  Honorable  William  M.  Evarts  presiding.] 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  It  is  a  great  reversal  of  positions,  that 
makes  me  hear  you  ascribe  leadership  to  me.  For  it  has  been 
my  duty  and  my  pleasure  in  these  long  years  to  follow  you ;  to 
learn  from  you  wisdom  in  public  affairs,  to  join  with  my  coun 
trymen  in  ascribing  to  you  not  merely  the  great  merit  of  leader 
ship  in  the  noblest  of  professions,  but  to  yield  our  admiration 
for  the  pre-eminent  success  which  has  given  you  the  opportunity 
to  lead  in  the  three  most  important  cases  ever  pleaded  by  a 
member  of  the  American  bar.  First,  in  resisting  your  own 
party  in  what  you  deemed  the  impolicy,  if  not  the  madness,  of 
impeaching  a  President ;  second,  in  maintaining  before  the 
greatest  international  tribunal  that  has  assembled  in  modern 
times  the  rights  of  your  country  and  obtaining  redress  for 
wrongs  to  her  that  grew  out  of  the  civil  war ;  and  third,  in 
perhaps  averting  civil  commotion  by  pleading  before  an  Elec 
toral  Commission  a  peaceful  settlement  of  the  angriest  political 
discussion  that  ever  arose  between  parties  in  the  United  States. 

I  turn  now  from  your  President  to  thank  you,  merchants, 
professional  men,  leaders  in  the  great  and  complex  society  of 
New  York  —  to  thank  you  for  receiving  me,  not  merely  at  this 
festal  board,  but  also  in  that  far  more  impressive  reception 
which  the  close  of  this  rainy  day  witnessed  in  your  broad  and 
beautiful  avenue.  I  could  not,  I  am  sure,  by  any  possible 
stretch  of  vanity  take  this  generous  demonstration  to  myself. 
It  is  given  to  me  as  the  representative  for  the  time  of  the  prin 
ciples  which  you  and  I  hold  in  common  touching  those  great 
interests  which  underlie,  as  we  believe,  the  prosperity  of  the 
nation.  It  is  fitting  that  the  commercial  metropolis  of  the  con 
tinent  should  lead ;  it  is  fitting  that  the  financial  centre  of  the 
continent  should  lead ;  it  is  fitting  that  this  great  city,  second 
only  in  the  world,  should  give  an  expression  to  the  continent 
of  its  views  and  its  judgment  on  the  important  questions  to  be 
decided  Tuesday  next  by  the  American  people. 


456  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

I  venture  —  not  that  I  know  it  so  well  as  you,  but  that  I  am 
spokesman  for  the  present  —  I  venture  to  remind  you,  men  of 
New  York,  with  your  wealth  and  your  just  influence,  that 
seventy  per  cent  of  the  entire  property  of  this  city  has  been 
acquired  since  Abraham  Lincoln  was  inaugurated  on  the  4th  of 
March,  1861.  I  should  not  mention  here  a  fact  of  percentage 
and  of  statistics  if  it  did  not  carry  with  it  an  argument  and  a 
moral.  The  common  apprehension  in  regard  to  New  York  is 
that  it  is  simply  a  great  commercial  city,  that  its  exports  and 
imports  represent  the  major  part  of  all  that  is  exported  from  or 
imported  into  the  United  States.  That  we  all  know.  But  we 
are  often  prone  to  forget  that  New  York  is  the  largest  manu 
facturing  city  in  the  world,  with  perhaps  a  single  exception  ; 
that  of  the  $6,000,000,000  of  manufactures  annually  produced 
in  the  United  States,  this  Empire  State  furnishes  one-fifth  — 
$1,200,000,000  — of  which  this  Empire  City  produces  $500,000,- 
000.  From  these  facts  comes  that  great  sympathy,  that  iden 
tity  of  interest  which  has  taken  the  place  of  the  previously 
existing  conflicts  between  what  have  been  known  as  the  manu 
facturing  and  the  commercial  interests,  and  has  taught  us  that 
there  can  be  no  true  prosperity  in  the  country  unless  the  three 
great  interests  comprehended  by  agriculture,  manufactures  and 
commerce  are  acting  in  harmony,  the  one  with  the  other,  and 
joining  together  for  a  common  end  for  the  common  good. 

It  is  usually  thought  that  a  change  of  Government  means 
but  little ;  that  we  come  together  with  our  votes  on  a  given  day 
and  count  them  as  the  sun  goes  down,  and  one  party  goes  out 
and  another  comes  in.  But,  gentlemen,  it  is  worth  while  to 
remember  that  the  United  States  is  proceeding  to-day  upon  a 
given  basis  of  public  policy  —  I  might  say  upon  a  given  series 
of  public  policies.  We  have  a  financial  system ;  we  have  a 
currency  system ;  we  have  an  important  national  credit ;  we 
have  a  levying  of  duties,  as  has  been  so  well  described  by  your 
distinguished  President  of  the  evening,  so  adjusted  that  the  in 
dustries  of  the  country  are  fostered  and  encouraged  thereby ; 
we  have  three  important  Constitutional  amendments  that  grew 
out  of  the  war,  upon  which,  at  this  hour,  and  in  the  hours,  and 
the  days,  and  the  weeks,  and  the  years  to  follow,  great  issues 
hang  in  this  country.  Are  we  —  if  we  should  be  defeated  and 


SPEECHES  DURING  THE  CANVASS  OF   1884.  457 

our  opponents  successful  —  are  we  to  understand  that  these 
policies  are  to  be  reversed  ?  Then  we  should,  one  and  all,  pre 
pare  for  a  grand  disaster.  For  a  single  illustration,  let  me 
recall  to  your  minds  that  the  repeal  of  ten  lines  in  the  National 
Banking  Act  would  restore  to  vitality  and  to  vigor  the  old 
State-bank  system  from  which  we  had  happily  escaped,  as  we 
thought,  for  all  the  remainder  of  our  lives. 

If  these  policies  are  to  be  reversed  you  will  have  to  recast 
3^our  accounts  and  review  your  ledgers  and  prepare  for  a  new 
and,  I  may  say,  a  dangerous  departure ;  and  if  these  policies 
are  not  to  be  reversed  they  will  certainly  be  better  maintained 
by  the  party  which  originated  them  and  has  thus  far  sustained 
them  with  energy  and  success. 

As  I  have  already  said,  we  speak  of  New  York  as  the  great 
exporting  and  importing  city,  and  from  that  perhaps  we  often 
give  an  exaggerated  importance,  relatively  speaking,  to  our 
foreign  trade  because  this  magnificent  metropolis  never  would 
have  attained  its  grandeur  and  its  wealth  upon  the  foreign  trade 
alone.  We  should  never  forget,  important  as  that  trade  is, 
representing  the  enormous  sum  of  $1)500,000,000  annually,  that 
it  sinks  into  insignificance  and  is  dwarfed  out  of  sight  when  we 
think  of  those  vast  domestic  exchanges  of  which  New  York  is 
the  admitted  centre  and  which  annually  exceed  $20,000,000,000. 

Our  foreign  trade  naturally  brings  to  our  consideration  the 
foreign  relations  of  this  country,  so  well  described  by  my  dis 
tinguished  friend  as  always  simple  and  sincere.  It  is  the  safe 
guard  of  republics  that  they  are  not  adapted  to  war.  I  mean 
aggressive  war.  And  it  is  the  safeguard  of  this  Republic  that 
in  a  defensive  war  we  can  defy  the  world.  This  nation  to-day 
is  in  profound  peace  with  the  world.  But,  in  my  judgment,  it 
has  before  it  a  great  duty  which  will  not  only  make  that  pro 
found  peace  permanent,  but  set  such  an  example  as  will  abso 
lutely  abolish  war  on  this  continent,  and,  by  a  great  example 
and  a  lofty  moral  precedent,  ultimately  abolish  it  in  other  con 
tinents.  I  am  justified  in  saying  that  every  one  of  the  seven 
teen  independent  Powers  of  North  and  South  America  is  not 
only  willing  but  ready — is  not  only  ready  but  eager  —  to  enter 
into  a  solemn  compact  in  a  Congress  that  may  be  called  in  the 
name  of  Peace,  to  agree  that  if,  unhappily,  differences  shall 


458  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

arise  —  as  differences  will  arise  between  men  and  between 
nations  —  they  shall  be  settled  upon  the  peaceful  and  Christian 
basis  of  arbitration. 

As  I  have  often  said  before,  I  am  glad  to  repeat  in  this 
great  centre  of  civilization  and  power,  that  in  my  judgment  no 
National  spectacle,  no  International  spectacle,  no  Continental 
spectacle,  could  be  more  grand  than  that  presented  by  the 
Republics  of  the  Western  World  meeting  and  solemnly  agreeing 
that  neither  the  soil  of  North  nor  of  South  America  shall  ever 
hereafter  be  stained  by  brothers'  blood. 

The  Republican  party,  gentlemen,  cannot  be  said  to  be  on 
trial.  To  be  on  trial  implies  something  to  be  tried  for.  The 
Republican  party  in  its  twenty-three  years  of  rulership  has 
advanced  the  interests  of  this  country  far  beyond  that  of  any 
of  its  predecessors  in  power.  It  has  elevated  the  moral  and 
intellectual  standard  of  America  —  it  has  increased  its  wealth 
in  a  ratio  never  before  realized  or  even  dreamed  of. 

Statistics,  I  know,  are  dry,  and  I  have  dwelt  so  much  upon 
them  in  the  last  six  weeks  that  they  might  be  supposed  to  be 
especially  dry  to  me.  Yet  I  never  can  forget  the  eloquence  of 
the  figures  which  tell  us  that  the  wealth  of  this  great  Empire 
State  when  the  Republican  party  took  the  reins  of  govern 
ment  was  estimated  at  81,800,000,000,  and  that  twenty  years 
afterward,  under  the  influence  of  an  industrial  and  financial 
system  for  which  that  party  is  proudly  responsible,  under  the 
influence  of  that  industrial  and  financial  system,  the  same  tests 
which  gave  you  11,800,000,000  of  property  in  1860  gave  you 
$6,300,000,000  in  1880.  There  has  never  been  in  all  the  history 
of  financial  progress  —  there  has  never  been  in  all  the  history  of 
the  world  —  any  parallel  to  this ;  and  I  am  sure,  gentlemen, 
that  the  Republican  party  is  not  arrogant  nor  over-confident 
when  it  claims  to  itself  the  credit  of  organizing  and  maintain 
ing  the  industrial  system  which  gave  to  you  and  your  associates 
in  enterprise  the  equal  and  just  laws  which  enabled  you  to 
make  this  marvelous  progress. 

As  I  have  said,  that  party  is  not  on  trial.  If  it  has  made 
mistakes,  they  have  been  merged  and  forgotten  in  the  greater 
success  which  has  corrected  them.  If  it  has  had  internal  differ 
ences,  they  are  laid  aside.  If  it  has  had  factional  strife,  I  am 


SPEECHES  DURING  THE  CANVASS  OF   1884.  459 

sure  that  has  ceased.  And  I  am  equally  sure  that,  looking  to 
the  history  of  the  past,  and  looking  to  that  great  future  which 
we  are  justified  in  prophesying,  this  imperial  State  cannot  afford 
to  reverse,  and  therefore  will  not  reverse  those  great  policies 
upon  which  it  has  grown  and  advanced  from  glory  to  glory. 

I  thank  you,  gentlemen ;  I  thank  that  larger  number  with 
whom  I  have  already  had  the  pleasure  of  exchanging  greetings 
to-day ;  I  thank  the  ministers,  the  merchants,  the  lawyers,  the 
professional  men,  the  mechanics,  the  laboring  men  of  New  York, 
for  a  cordial  reception,  an  over-generous  welcome,  which  in  all 
the  mutations  of  my  future  life  will  be  to  me  among  the  proud 
est  and  most  precious  of  my  memories. 

[In  response  to  a  reception  from  the  ladies  of  Brooklyn  in  the  Academy  of 
Music  in  that  city,  Oct.  30,  1884.] 

IN  the  important  National  contest  which  now  draws  to  a 
close,  much  of  the  progress  of  which  I  have  personally  wit 
nessed,  two  things  have  especially  impressed  me  —  the  influence 
exerted  by  the  women  of  the  United  States,  and  that  exerted 
by  the  young  men,  and  I  do  not  know  that  I  ought  to  divide 
these,  for  I  attribute  the  great  interest  and  activity  of  the 
young  men  largely  to  the  influence  of  their  mothers.  The  Re 
publican  party  owes  a  great  debt  to  the  women  of  the  United 
States.  Not  a  debt  now  maturing,  but  one  which  began  at  the 
foundation  of  the  party.  The  literature  which  sprang  from 
the  pen  of  woman  did  much  —  I  was  about  to  say  did  most  —  to 
concentrate  that  great  army  of  freedom  which  in  the  conflict 
that  came  upon  the  country,  destroyed  the  institution  of  slavery. 
I  am  sure  that  when  the  news  came  that  I  was  selected  for  the 
important  and  responsible  post  in  which  I  now  stand,  I  received 
no  greeting  that  meant  more,  or  was  more  grateful  to  me,  than 
the  one  which  came  to  me  from  that  lady  whose  gifted  pen  im 
parted  spirit  and  soul  to  the  anti-slavery  agitation  when  she 
gave  to  the  world  "  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin." 

I  do  not  feel,  therefore,  that  the  ladies  of  Brooklyn  are  taking 
any  new  step  in  this  cordial  welcome  —  to  which  a  grateful 
heart  feels  it  impossible  to  make  adequate  response  —  I  do  not 
feel  that  they  are  taking  any  new  step  or  exerting  any  other  in 
fluence  than  that  which  has  been  constantly  exerted  by  women 


460  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

during  the  thirty  years  in  the  history  of  the  United  States  in 
which  the  Republican  party  has  led  the  National  progress.  I 
know  the  wide-spread  influence  that  goes  out  from  such  a  greet 
ing  as  this.  I  know  that,  without  suffrage,  woman  casts  often 
the  weightiest  vote.  I  know  that  the  great  moral  strength,  — 
showing  itself  constantly  in  political  strength, — with  which 
the  Republican  party  has  been  inspired  in  its  struggles  and  its 
triumphs,  has  come  from  the  gracious  and  pure  influence  of 
woman.  I  make,  therefore,  due  and  profound  acknowledgment, 
not  merely  for  the  great  significance  of  this  occasion,  but  for 
whatever  of  personal  compliment  it  may  imply.  But  I  should 
be  vain  indeed  if  I  should  take  to  myself  any  large  part  of  that 
which  means  only  an  expression  of  sympathy  and  support  in 
the  commanding  contest  in  which,  for  the  time,  I  am  called  to 
represent  the  highest  patriotism,  the  best  heart,  the  loftiest 
aspiration  of  the  American  Republic. 

[At  the  Grand  Opera  House,  Brooklyn,  New  York,  Oct.  30,  1884.] 

CITIZENS  OF  BROOKLYN,- — Thirty  years  of  effort,  twenty- 
four  years  of  power,  have  certainly  vindicated  the  claims  of 
the  Republican  party  to  general  and  to  National  confidence, 
and  the  leading  question  now  to  be  decided  by  the  popular  vote 
in  all  the  States  is,  whether  that  industrial  system  and  that 
financial  system  which  go  hand  in  hand  shall  be  superseded, 
and  whether  the  experiment  of  Free  Trade,  with  a  possible 
change  in  our  currency  system,  shall  be  resorted  to  by  the  vol 
untary  consent  of  the  American  people.  Certainly  there  is  no 
man  intelligent  enough  to  reckon  up  his  week's  wages  on  Satur 
day  night  who  does  not  know  that  the  only  difference  between 
a  day's  pay  for  labor  in  the  United  States  and  a  day's  pay  for 
labor  in  the  British  Isles  is  that  which  is  produced  by  and 
results  from  the  Protective  tariff.  So  that  the  American 
laborer  or  mechanic  who  voluntarily  casts  his  ballot  for  the 
elevation  to  power  of  a  party  committed  to  Free  Trade  casts 
his  ballot  for  the  reduction  of  his  own  wages. 

I  desire  to  repeat  here  what  I  have  said  more  than  once  else 
where  ;  that  all  the  voluntary  associations  which  laboring  men 
and  mechanics  resort  to  in  their  trades-unions  and  like  co-opera 
tive  efforts  —  well  enough  in  themselves,  desirable  no  doubt  in 


SPEECHES  DURING  THE  CANVASS  OF  1384.  461 

many  respects,  meeting  certainly  with  no  word  of  criticism 
from  me  —  are  yet  entirely  ineffectual  as  a  means  of  upholding 
the  scale  of  American  wages  unless  behind  them  there  be  that 
protection  and  support  which  come  from  the  levying  of  duties 
on  the  scale  embodied  in  the  Protective  tariff.  Here  at  home 
the  trades-unions  may  protect  you  from  the  exactions  of  an 
unjust  employer ;  but  how,  in  an  era  of  Free  Trade,  can  they 
protect  you  from  the  importation  of  cheap  fabrics  from  the  Old 
World  which  must  necessarily  displace  your  own,  or  probably 
compel  the  abandonment  of  the  rival  manufactures  in  this 
country  ?  So  that  what  I  desire  to  enforce  and  impress  upon 
men  of  enterprise  and  men  of  prudence  is,  that  their  only  safe 
guard  is  in  upholding  that  industrial  system  which  prevents 
ruinous  competition  in  the  fabrics  they  are  making,  and  that 
financial  system  which,  when  a  dollar  is  earned,  enables  it  to 
be  paid  with  a  hundred  cents.  It  is  the  peculiar  merit  of  the 
Republican  party  that,  while  from  its  hostility  to  slave-labor, 
with  the  natural  consequence,  protection  to  free  labor,  it  has 
earned  the  right  to  the  suffrage  and  support  of  the  industrial 
class,  it  has  never  done  it  in  the  demagogic  spirit  which  seeks 
to  arouse  the  prejudice  of  labor  against  the  rights  of  capital. 
It  has  continually  taught  the  wise  doctrine  that  capital  and 
labor  are  friends  and  not  enemies  ;  that  in  co-operation  they 
can  produce  prosperity,  but  that  in  hostility  they  can  produce 
only  adversity.  The  Republican  party  has  taken  care  that 
capital  shall  not  encroach  upon  labor,  and  that  labor  shall  be 
so  protected  that  it  shall  have  no  cause  of  enmity  to  capital. 

[Mr.  Elaine's  speech  in  New  Haven,  Connecticut,  on  Nov.  1,  1884.] 

FELLOW-CITIZENS,  —  Since  my  arrival  in  this  city,  an  address 
from  the  clergymen  of  New  Haven  has  been  placed  in  my 
hands  expressing  their  personal  respect  and  confidence,  and, 
through  the  person  who  delivered  it,  the  assurance  that  on 
public  questions  and  political  issues  under  the  laws  and  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  they  know  no  sect ;  they  know 
no  Protestant,  no  Catholic,  no  Hebrew,  but  the  equality  of  all. 
In  the  city  of  Hartford  this  morning,  a  letter  was  put  into  my 
hands  asking  me  why  I  charged  the  Democratic  party  with 
being  inspired  by  "  rum,  Romanism  and  rebellion."  My  answer 


462  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

is  first  that  an  unfortunate  and  ill-considered  expression  of  an 
other  man  was  falsely  attributed  to  me  ;  and,  in  the  next  place, 
it  gives  me  an  opportunity  to  say,  at  the  close  of  the  National 
campaign,  that  in  the  public  speeches  which  I  have  made,  I 
have  refrained  carefully  and  instinctively  from  any  disrespect 
ful  allusion  to  the  Democratic  party.  I  differ  from  that  party 
widely  on  matters  of  principle,  but  I  have  too  much  respect  for 
the  millions  of  my  countrymen  whom  it  includes,  to  assail  it 
with  epithets  or  abuse.  I  am  sure  that  I  am  the  last  man  in 
the  United  States  who  would  make  a  disrespectful  allusion  to 
another  man's  religion.  The  United  States  guarantees  freedom 
of  religious  opinion.  Before  the  law  and  under  the  Constitu 
tion,  the  Protestant,  the  Catholic  and  the  Hebrew  stand  entitled 
to  absolutely  the  same  recognition  and  the  same  protection.  If 
disrespectful  allusion  is  to  be  made  against  the  religion  of  any 
man,  I  repeat  that  I  am  the  last  man  to  make  it,  for  though 
Protestant  by  conviction  myself,  and  connected  with  a  Protes 
tant  church,  I  should  esteem  myself  of  all  men  the  most  de 
graded  if,  under  any  pressure  or  under  any  temptation,  I  could, 
in  any  presence,  make  a  disrespectful  allusion  to  that  ancient 
faith  in  which  my  mother  lived  and  died. 

The  question  now  before  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
my  fellow-citizens,  is  not  a  religious  one,  is  not  a  question  of 
creeds  though  it  comes  home  to  the  fireside  of  every  American 
citizen.  We  have  enjoyed  in  this  country  for  the  last  twenty- 
three  years  the  numberless  advantages  of  a  Protective  tariff. 
There  is  not  a  man  within  the  sound  of  my  voice,  there  is  not 
a  man  in  Connecticut,  there  is  not  a  man  in  New  England, 
there  is  not  a  man  in  the  United  States,  who  is  not  directly  or 
indirectly  interested  in  the  Protective  tariff.  I  see  before  me 
a  large  assemblage,  including,  doubtless,  many  who  earn  their 
bread  in  the  sweat  of  their  faces,  and  to  whom  the  daily  wages 
of  labor  is  a  matter  of  great  importance.  I  beg  to  remind  them 
that  the  only  agency  which  secures  them  higher  wages  for  their 
labor  than  a  man  in  the  British  Isles  receives  for  the  same 
labor,  is  the  Protective  tariff.  When  I  look  abroad  in  your 
State,  and  when  I  examine  your  statistics,  I  find  that  Connecti 
cut  has  doubled  its  wealth  in  the  last  twenty  years ;  and  I  sub 
mit  that  that  rapid  ratio  of  progress  is  a  direct  result  of  the 


SPEECHES  DURING  THE  CANVASS  OF   1884.  463 

Protective  tariff.  Every  man  in  this  State,  whether  he  be  a 
capitalist  or  a  laborer,  whether  he  be  manufacturer  or  opera 
tive,  finds  that  the  question  of  protecting  American  industry 
enters  into  the  warp  and  woof  of  his  daily  life.  It  is  a  cardinal 
doctrine  in  the  creed  of  the  Republican  party  that  a  Protective 
tariff  shall  be  maintained,  and  it  has  been  the  invariable  practice 
of  the  Democratic  party  in  Congress  for  more  than  fifty  years 
past,  to  oppose  the  policy  of  Protection.  You  choose  between 
the  policies  of  Protection  and  Free  Trade  when  you  choose 
between  the  Republican  and  Democratic  parties.  The  decision, 
fellow-citizens,  rests  with  you  ! 

The  omens  in  the  present  contest  are  to  be  spoken  of  by  you, 
not  by  me  ;  but  there  are  one  or  two  things  connected  with  the 
canvass  to  which  I  may  with  propriety  call  your  attention.  I 
beg  especially  to  refer  to  the  fact  that,  in  a  larger  degree  than 
in  any  other  campaign  of  which  I  have  personal  knowledge, 
the  Republican  party  has  the  inestimable  advantage  of  the 
sympathy  and  support  of  the  great  mass  of  the  young  men  of 
the  country,  and  the  young  men  carry  with  them  strength, 
confidence,  the  power  to  bear  burdens,  and  the  power  to  give 
encouragement  to  others.  The  Republican  party  began  its 
existence  thirty  years  ago,  with  the  support  of  the  young 
men.  Twenty-eight  years  ago,  before  many  who  now  hear  me 
knew  any  thing  of  political  contests,  that  party  entered  the 
field  for  the  first  time  in  a  National  struggle.  It  selected  a 
young  man  for  its  leader ;  it  selected  a  man  in  his  forty-third 
year  —  the  same  age  at  which  Washington  was  intrusted  with 
the  command  of  the  Continental  Army  —  a  young  man  of  great 
zeal,  of  great  intelligence,  and  of  a  career  so  heroic  that  it  par 
takes  largely  of  romance.  Under  his  leadership  the  Republican 
party,  in  its  very  first  National  contest,  alarmed,  if  it  did  not 
defeat,  its  opponents.  Since  then  twenty-eight  years  have  been 
added  to  his  age,  bringing  it  up  to  the  psalmist's  limit  —  three 
score  years  and  ten  ,  but  he  is  still  fresh  and  vigorous  in  body 
and  in  mind,  still  warm  in  his  support  of  the  Republican  prin 
ciples,  and  it  is  my  especial  pleasure  to-day  that  I  can,  as  I  now 
do,  introduce  to  you  General  John  C.  Fremont. 


464  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

[At  Boston  the  evening  before  the  Presidential  election,  November  3d,  at  a 
dinner  tendered  to  Mr.  Elaine  by  leading  Republicans,  Honorable  Henry  Cabot 
Lodge  presiding.] 

MR.  CHAIRMAN  AND  GENTLEMEN,  —  For  reasons  which  I 
need  not  detail,  a  reception  of  this  character  in  the  city  of 
Boston  at  the  close  of  the  National  campaign  is  peculiarly 
grateful  to  me,  and  I  thank  Mr.  Lodge  for  giving  me  the  oppor 
tunity  to  thank  you.  It  is  too  late  to  argue,  or  even  to  state, 
the  great  issues  involved  in  the  canvass  which  closes  to-night, 
but  I  am  sure  that  those  issues  constitute  a  difference  between 
parties  so  broad  and  so  deep  that  their  decision,  one  way  or  the 
other,  will  affect  for  weal  or  for  woe  the  history  of  the  United 
States  for  many  years  to  come.  I  am  sure  that  the  Constitu 
tional  amendments  which  have  grown  out  of  the  civil  struggle 
and  which  have  in  so  many  respects,  I  might  say,  changed  the 
very  framework  of  our  Government,  have  been  made  under  the 
lead  and  by  the  power  of  the  Republican  party,  and  are  now  in 
its  keeping.  I  have  frequently  said  elsewhere,  and  I  here  now 
repeat,  that  to  transfer  the  political  power  of  the  country  to 
the  Democratic  party  at  this  time  would  by  no  means  be  one  of 
those  ordinary  transfers  of  the  Government  from  one  party 
to  another  which  the  gray-haired  men  within  my  view  witnessed 
more  than  once  in  the  last  generation.  It  would  not  be  merely 
an  instance  of  one  party  going  out  and  another  coming  in. 
It  would  be  rather  a  reversal  and  overturning  of  the  indus 
trial  systems  of  the  Government,  of  the  financial  systems  of 
the  Government,  in  short  a  transfer  of  the  sovereignty  of  the 
country  of  far  greater  consequence  than  the  ordinary  changes 
of  dynasty  which  occur  in  European  Governments  of  a  differ 
ent  form  from  ours. 

I  close  this  canvass,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  which  I  have  taken  an 
active  part,  with  a  profound  conviction  that  intelligent  as  the 
voters  of  the  United  States  are  —  and  I  am  certainly  address 
ing  some  of  the  most  intelligent  of  them  —  accustomed  as  they 
are  to  give  heed  to  the  weight  and  tendency  of  the  questions 
to  be  decided,  the  people  of  the  United  States  have  not  yet 
measured,  nor,  as  I  believe,  yet  fully  comprehended,  what  it 
would  mean  to  transfer  this  Government  to  the  absolute  control 
of  the  Southern  States  of  this  Union.  Nor  do  I  here  and  now 


SPEECHES  DURING  THE  CANVASS  OF  1884.  465 

stop  to  give  my  own  idea  of  what  such  a  change  would  mean. 
It  would  be  out  of  place.  I  should  refrain  for  the  additional 
reason  that  any  thing  I  might  now  say  would  be  too  late  to  in 
fluence  popular  judgment  in  any  direction,  and  for  the  third 
reason  that  in  so  far  as  my  own  voice  could  reach  and  influence 
the  just  judgment  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  I  have 
exerted  it  to  the  extent  of  my  strength.  I  have  never  offered 
an  apology  or  explanation  for  taking  what  some  of  my  closest 
friends  regarded  as  an  extraordinary  step  in  going  before  the 
people  somewhat  more  freely  than  has  been  the  habit  of  those 
chosen  as  the  Presidential  candidates  of  great  parties.  But  I 
will  now  say  that  I  did  it  —  and  I  desire  to  put  this  on  record 
—  because  I  thought  that  the  peculiar  character  of  the  canvass 
was  my  personal  justification  for  doing  it.  I  am  a  profound 
believer  in  a  popular  government,  and  I  know  no  reason  why 
I  should  not  face  the  American  people.  I  did  it,  too,  for 
the  more  specific  reason  that  I  believed  there  was  danger  lest  the 
leading  question  which  relates  to  the  Protective  system  of 
America  should  be  partially  or  perhaps  wholly  excluded  from 
that  consideration  by  the  people  which  its  merits  deserved,  and, 
intrusted  as  I  was  with  the  function  of  representing  all  mem 
bers  of  the  Republican  party,  I  felt  that  I  would  in  an  especial 
degree  obtain  a  hearing. 

I  have  returned  somewhat  weary,  somewhat  broken  in  voice, 
as  your  ears  have  already  detected,  but  I  have  returned  with 
even  a  more  profound  trust  than  I  had  at  the  outset  in  the  judg 
ment,  in  the  fairness,  in  the  .impartiality,  in  the  generosity  of 
the  great  mass  of  American  citizens.  I  go  to  my  home  to-mor 
row  not  without  a  strong  confidence  in  the  result  of  the  ballot, 
but  with  a  heart  that  shall  not  in  the  least  degree  be  troubled 
by  any  verdict  that  may  be  returned  by  the  American  people. 
I  have  sought  in  my  entire  canvass  to  lose  sight  of  myself  and 
of  whatever  personal  fortune  I  have  at  stake,  in  the  far  greater, 
and  far  grander,  and  far  more  enduring  issue  which  for  the 
time  I  was  submitting  to  popular  judgment. 


466  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


AFTER    THE    PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTION    OF   1884. 


[Mr.  Elaine's  speech  to  a  large  number  of  Republican  friends  of  the  city  and 
county  of  his  residence,  who  serenaded  him  on  the  evening  of  Xov.  18,  1884.] 

FRIENDS  AND  NEIGHBORS,  —  The  National  contest  is  over 
and  by  the  narrowest  of  margins  we  have  lost.  I  thank  you 
for  your  call,  which  if  not  one  of  joyous  congratulation  is  one, 
I  am  sure,  of  confidence  and  sanguine  hopes  for  the  future.  I 
thank  you  for  the  public  opportunity  you  give  me  to  express 
my  sense  of  obligation  not  only  to  you  but  to  all  the  Republi 
cans  of  Maine.  They  responded  to  my  nomination  with  grati 
fying  enthusiasm  and  ratified  it  by  a  superb  vote.  I  count  it 
as  one  of  the  honors  and  pleasures  of  my  public  career  that  the 
party  in  Maine,  after  struggling  hard  for  the  last  six  years  and 
twice  within  that  period  losing  the  State,  has  come  back  in  this 
campaign  to  an  old-fashioned  twenty  thousand  plurality.  No 
other  expression  of  public  confidence  and  esteem  could  equal 
that  of  the  people  among  whom  I  have  lived  for  thirty  years, 
and  to  whom  I  am  attached  by  all  the  ties  that  ennoble  human 
nature,  and  give  joy  and  dignity  to  life.  After  Maine,  indeed, 
with  Maine,  my  first  thought  is  always  of  Pennsylvania. 
How  can  I  fittingly  express  my  thanks  for  that  unparalleled 
majority  of  more  than  eighty  thousand  votes?  —  a  popular  in 
dorsement  which  has  deeply  touched  my  heart  and  which  has, 
if  possible,  increased  my  affection  for  the  grand  old  Common 
wealth —  an  affection  which  I  inherited  from  my  ancestry  and 
which  I  shall  transmit  to  my  children. 

But  I  do  not  limit  my  thanks  to  the  State  of  my  residence 
and  the  State  of  my  birth.  I  owe  much  to  the  true  and  zealous 
friends  in  New  England  who  were  nobly  steadfast  to  the  Re 
publican  party  and  its  candidates,  and  to  the  eminent  scholars 
and  divines,  who,  stepping  aside  from  their  ordinary  vocations, 


AFTER  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF   1884.      467 

made  my  cause  their  cause,  and  to  loyalty  to  principle,  added 
the  special  compliment  of  standing  as  my  personal  representa 
tives  in  the  struggle.  But  the  achievements  for  the  Republican 
cause  in  the  East  are  even  surpassed  by  the  splendid  victories 
in  the  West.  In  that  magnificent  cordon  of  States  that 
stretches  from  the  foot-hills  of  the  Alleghenies  to  the  Golden 
Gate  of  the  Pacific  —  beginning  with  Ohio  and  ending  with 
California  —  the  Republican  banner  was  borne  so  loftily  that 
but  a  single  State  failed  to  join  in  the  wide  acclaim  of  triumph. 
Nor  should  I  do  justice  to  my  feelings  if  I  failed  to  thank 
the  Republicans  of  the  Empire  State  who  encountered  many 
discouragements  and  obstacles,  who  fought  against  foes  from 
within  and  foes  from  without,  and  who  waged  so  strong  a  battle 
that  a  change  of  one  vote  in  every  two  thousand  would  have 
given  us  the  victory  in  the  nation.  Indeed  a  change  of  little 
more  than  five  thousand  votes  would  have  transferred  New 
York,  Indiana,  New  Jersey,  and  Connecticut  to  the  Republican 
standard,  and  have  made  the  North  as  solid  as  the  South.  My 
thanks  would  still  be  incomplete  if  I  should  fail  to  recognize 
with  special  gratitude  that  great  body  of  workingmen — both 
native  and  foreign  born  —  who  gave  me  their  earnest  support 
—  breaking  from  old  personal  and  party  ties  and  finding  in  the 
principles  which  I  represented  in  the  canvass  the  safeguard  and 
protection  of  their  own  fireside  interests. 

The  result  of  the  election,  my  friends,  will  be  regarded  in 
the  future,  I  think,  as  extraordinary.  The  Northern  States, 
leaving  out  of  the  count  the  cities  of  New  York  and  Brooklyn, 
sustained  the  Republican  cause  by  a  majority  of  more  than 
four  hundred  thousand  —  almost  half  a  million  indeed  —  of  the 
popular  vote.  The  cities  of  New  York  and  Brooklyn  threw 
their  great  strength  and  influence  with  the  solid  South,  and 
were  the  decisive  element  which  gave  to  that  section  the  con 
trol  of  the  National  Government.  Speaking  now,  not  as  a 
defeated  candidate,  but  simply  as  a  loyal  and  devoted  Ameri 
can,  I  think  the  transfer  of  the  political  power  of  the  Govern 
ment  to  the  South  is  a  great  National  misfortune.  It  is  a 
misfortune  because  it  introduces  an  element  which  cannot 
insure  harmony  and  prosperity  to  the  people,  because  it  intro 
duces  into  a  Republic  the  rule  of  a  minority. 


468  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

The  first  instinct  of  an  American  is  equality  —  equality  of 
right,  equality  of  privilege,  equality  of  political  power  —  that 
equality  which  says  to  every  citizen,  "  Your  vote  is  as  good, 
and  as  potential  as  the  vote  of  any  other  citizen."  That 
cannot  be  said  to-day  in  the  United  States.  The  course  of 
affairs  in  the  South  has  crushed  out  the  political  power  of  more 
than  six  million  American  citizens  and  has  transferred  it  by 
violence  to  others.  Forty-two  Presidential  electors  are  assigned 
to  the  South  on  account  of  the  colored  population,  and  yet  the 
colored  population  with  more  than  eleven  hundred  thousand 
loyal  votes  have  been  unable  to  choose  a  single  elector.  Even 
in  States  where  they  have  a  decided  majority  of  more  than  a 
hundred  thousand  they  are  deprived  of  free  suffrage,  and  their 
rights  as  citizens  scornfully  trodden  under  foot.  The  eleven 
States  that  comprised  the  Rebel  Confederacy  had  by  the  census 
of  1880  seven  and  a  half  million  white  population,  and  five 
million  three  hundred  thousand  colored  population.  The  col 
ored  population  almost  to  a  man  desire  to  support  the  Republi 
can  party,  but  by  a  system  of  reckless  intimidation,  and  by 
violence  and  murder  whenever  violence  and  murder  are  required, 
they  are  absolutely  deprived  of  political  power. 

If  the  outrage  stopped  there  it  would  be  bad  enough.  But 
it  does  not  stop  there,  for  not  only  is  the  negro  population 
disfranchised  but  the  power  which  rightly  and  Constitutionally 
belongs  to  them  is  transferred  to  the  white  population  of  the 
South,  enabling  them  to  exert  an  electoral  influence  far  beyond 
that  exerted  by  the  same  number  of  white  people  in  the  North. 
As  an  illustration  of  the  extent  to  which  this  works  destruction 
of  all  fair  elections,  let  me  present  to  you  five  States  in  the  late 
Confederacy  and  five  loyal  States  of  the  North,  possessing  in 
each  section  the  same  number  of  electoral  votes.  In  the  South 
the  States  of  Louisiana,  Mississippi,  Alabama,  Georgia  and 
South  Carolina  have,  in  the  aggregate,  forty-eight  electoral 
votes.  They  have  two  million  eight  hundred  thousand  white 
people  and  over  three  million  colored  people.  In  the  North  the 
States  of  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Iowa,  Kansas  and  California  have 
likewise  in  the  aggregate  forty-eight  electoral  votes,  and  they 
have  a  white  population  of  five  million  six  hundred  thousand, 
or  just  double  that  of  the  five  Southern  States  which  I  have 


AFTER  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF  1884.      469 

named.  These  Northern  States  have  practically  no  colored 
population.  It  is  therefore  evident  that  the  white  men  in  those 
Southern  States,  by  usurping  and  absorbing  the  rights  of  the 
colored  men,  are  exerting  just  double  the  political  power  of 
the  white  men  in  the  Northern  States.  I  submit,  my  friends, 
that  such  a  condition  of  affairs  is  extraordinary,  unjust,  and 
derogatory  to  the  manhood  of  the  North.  Even  those  who  are 
vindictively  opposed  to  negro  suffrage  will  not  deny  that  if 
Presidential  electors  are  assigned  to  the  South  by  reason  of  the 
negro  population,  that  population  ought  to  be  permitted  free 
suffrage  in  the  election.  To  deny  that  clear  proposition  is  to 
affirm  that  a  Southern  white  man  in  the  Gulf  States  is  entitled 
to  double  the  political  power  of  a  Northern  white  man  in  the 
Lake  States.  It  is  to  affirm  that  a  Confederate  soldier  shall 
wield  twice  the  influence  in  the  nation  that  a  Union  soldier  can 
wield,  and  that  a  perpetual  and  constantly  increasing  superiority 
shall  be  conceded  to  the  Southern  white  man  in  the  Government 
of  the  National  Union.  If  that  be  quietly  conceded  in  this 
generation,  it  will  be  hardened  into  custom,  until  the  badge  of 
inferiority  will  attach  to  the  Northern  white  man  as  odiously  as 
ever  Norman  noble  stamped  it  upon  Saxon  churl. 

This  subject  is  of  deep  interest  to  the  laboring  men  of  the 
North.  With  the  Southern  Democracy  triumphant  in  their 
states  and  in  the  Nation,  the  negro  will  be  compelled  to  work 
for  just  such  wages  as  the  whites  may  decree,  —  wages  which 
will  amount,  as  did  the  supplies  of  the  slaves,  to  a  bare  sub 
sistence,  equated  in  cash,  perhaps  at  thirty-five  cents  per  day, 
over  the  entire  South.  The  white  laborer  will  soon  feel  the 
destructive  effect  of  this  upon  his  own  wages.  The  Republican 
party  has  clearly  seen  from  the  earliest  days  of  reconstruction, 
that  wages  in  the  South  must  be  raised  to  a  just  recompense  of 
the  laborer,  or  wages  in  the  North  must  be  ruinously  lowered, 
and  it  has  steadily  worked  for  the  former  result.  The  reverse 
influence  will  now  be  set  in  motion,  and  that  condition  of  affairs 
reproduced  which,  as  Mr.  Lincoln,  years  ago,  warned  the  free 
laboring  men  of  the  North,  will  prove  hostile  to  their  independ 
ence,  and  will  inevitably  lead  to  a  ruinous  reduction  of  wages. 
A  mere  difference  in  the  color  of  the  skin  will  not  suffice  to 
maintain  an  entirely  different  standard  of  wages  in  contiguous 


470  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

States,  and  the  voluntary  will  be  compelled  to  yield  to  the  in 
voluntary.  So  completely  have  the  colored  men  in  the  South 
been  already  deprived  by  the  Democratic  party  of  their  Consti 
tutional  and  legal  rights  as  citizens  of  the  United  States,  that 
they  regard  the  advent  of  that  party  to  national  power  as  the 
signal  of  their  re-enslavement,  and  are  affrighted  because  they 
think  all  legal  protection  for  them  is  gone. 

Few  persons  in  the  North  realize  how  completely  the  chiefs 
of  the  Rebellion  wield  the  political  power  which  has  triumphed 
in  the  late  election.  It  is  a  portentous  fact  that  the  Democratic 
senators  who  come  from  the  States  of  the  late  Confederacy,  all, 
without  a  single  exception,  personally  participated  in  the  re 
bellion  against  the  National  Government.  It  is  a  still  more 
significant  fact  that  in  those  States  no  man  who  was  loyal  to 
the  Union,  however  strong  a  Democrat  he  may  be  to-day,  has 
the  slightest  chance  of  political  promotion.  The  one  great 
avenue  to  honor  in  that  section  is  the  record  of  zealous  service 
in  the  war  against  the  Government.  It  is  certainly  astounding 
that  the  section  in  which  friendship  for  the  Union  in  the  day 
of  its  trial  and  agony  is  still  a  political  disqualification,  should 
be  called  now  to  rule  over  the  Union.  All  this  takes  place 
during  the  lifetime  of  the  generation  that  fought  the  war,  and 
elevates  into  practical  command  of  the  American  Government 
the  identical  men  who  organized  for  its  destruction  and  plunged 
us  into  the  bloodiest  contest  of  modern  times. 

I  have  spoken  of  the  South  as  placed  by  the  late  election  in 
possession  of  the  Government.  The  South  furnished  nearly 
three-fourths  of  the  electoral  votes  that  defeated  the  Republican 
party,  and  they  will  step  to  the  command  of  the  Democratic 
party  as  unchallenged  and  as  unrestrained  as  they  held  the 
same  position  for  thirty  years  before  the  civil  war.  Gentlemen, 
there  cannot  be  political  inequality  among  the  citizens  of  a  Free 
Republic.  There  cannot  be  a  minority  of  white  men  in  the 
South  ruling  a  majority  of  white  men  in  the  North.  Patriotism, 
self-respect,  pride,  protection  for  person,  safety  for  the  country, 
all  cry  out  against  it.  The  very  thought  of  it  stirs  the  blood 
of  men  who  inherit  equality  from  the  pilgrims  who  first  landed 
on  Plymouth  rocks,  and  from  liberty-loving  patriots  who  came 
to  the  Delaware  with  William  Penn.  It  becomes  the  primal 


AFTER  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF   1884.       471 

question  of  American  manhood.  It  demands  a  hearing  and  a 
settlement,  and  that  settlement  will  vindicate  the  equality  of 
the  American  citizen  in  all  personal  and  civil  rights.  It  will  at 
least  establish  the  equality  of  white  men  under  the  National 
Government  and  will  give  to  the  Northern  man  who  fought  to 
preserve  the  Union  as  large  a  voice  in  its  government  as  may 
be"  exercised  by  the  Southern  man  who  fought  to  destroy  the 
Union. 

The  contest  just  closed  utterly  dwarfs  the  fortunes  of  candi 
dates  whether  successful  or  unsuccessful.  Purposely,  I  may 
say  instinctively,  I  have  discussed  the  issues  and  consequences 
of  that  contest  without  reference  to  my  own  defeat,  without 
the  remotest  reference  to  the  gentleman  who  is  elevated  to  the 
Presidency.  Towards  him  personally  I  have  no  cause  for  the 
slightest  ill  will,  and  with  entire  cordiality  I  may  express 
the  wish  that  his  official  career  will  prove  gratifying  to  himself 
and  beneficial  to  the  country,  and  that  his  administration  may 
overcome  the  embarrassment  which  the  peculiar  source  of  its 
power  imposes  upon  it  from  the  hour  of  its  birth. 


472  MEMORIAL  SERVICES. 


MEMORIAL    SERVICES    IN    HONOR    OF    GENERAL 
GRANT    IN   AUGUSTA,   MAINE,   AUG.   8,   1885. 


[General  Ulysses  S.  Grant,  ex-President  of  the  United  States,  died  at  Mount 
McGregor,  New  York,  on  Thursday,  July  23,  1885.  His  funeral  was  in  the  City 
of  New  York  on  Saturday,  August  8.  On  the  same  day  and  at  the  same  hour 
memorial  services  were  held  in  many  places  throughout  the  Union.  At  the  ser 
vice  in  Augusta,  Maine,  Mr.  Elaine  delivered  the  following  address: — ] 

PUBLIC  sensibility  and  personal  sorrow  over  the  death  of 
General  Grant  are  not  confined  to  one  continent.  Profound 
admiration  for  great  qualities  and  still  more  profound  gratitude 
for  great  services  have  touched  the  hearts  of  the  people  with 
deep  sympathy  —  increased  even  to  tender  emotion  by  the 
agony  of  his  closing  days  and  the  undaunted  heroism  with 
which  he  morally  conquered  a  last  cruel  fate. 

The  world  in  its  hero-worship  is  discriminating  and  practical, 
if  not  indeed  selfish.  Eminent  qualities  and  rare  achievements 
do  not  always  insure  lasting  fame.  A  brilliant  orator  attracts 
and  enchains  his  hearers  with  his  inspired  and  inspiring  gift, 
but  if  his  speech  be  not  successfully  used  to  some  great,  public, 
worthy  end  he  passes  soon  from  popular  recollection,  his  only 
reward  being  in  the  fitful  applause  of  his  forgetting  audience. 
A  victorious  general  in  a  war  of  mere  ambition  receives  the 
cheers  of  the  multitude  and  the  ceremonial  honors  of  his  gov 
ernment,  but  if  he  bring  no  boon  to  his  country  his  fame  will 
find  no  abiding-place  in  the  centuries  that  follow.  The  hero 
of  the  ages  is  he  who  has  been  chief  and  foremost  in  his  day 
in  contributing  to  the  moral  or  material  progress,  to  the  gran 
deur  and  glory,  of  the  succeeding  generations.  Washington 
secured  the  freedom  of  the  Colonies  and  founded  a  new  Nation. 
Lincoln  was  the  prophet  who  warned  the  people  of  the  evils 


MEMORIAL  SERVICES.  473 

that  were  undermining  our  Government,  and  the  statesman  who 
was  called  to  leadership  in  the  work  of  their  extirpation.  Grant 
was  the  soldier  who  by  victory  in  the  field  gave  vitality  and 
force  to  the  civil  policies  and  philanthropic  measures  which 
Lincoln  devised  in  the  Cabinet  for  the  regeneration  and  per 
petuity  of  the  Republic. 

The  monopoly  of  fame  by  the  few  in  this  world  comes  from 
an  instinct,  perhaps  from  a  deep-seated  necessity  of  human 
nature.  Heroes  cannot  be  multiplied.  The  gods  of  mythology 
lost  their  sacredness  and  their  power  by  their  numbers.  The 
millions  pass  into  oblivion ;  only  the  units  survive.  Who  aided 
the  great  leader  of  Israel  to  conduct  the  chosen  people  over  the 
sands  of  the  desert  and  through  the  waters  of  the  sea,  unto 
the  Promised  Land  ?  Who  marched  with  Alexander  from  the 
Bosphorus  to  India  ?  Who  commanded  the  legions  under  Caesar 
in  the  conquest  of  Gaul?  Who  crossed  the  Atlantic  with 
Columbus  ?  Who  ventured  through  the  winter  passes  of  the 
Alps  with  the  Conqueror  of  Italy  ?  Who  fought  with  Wellington 
at  Waterloo  ?  Alas  !  how  soon  it  may  be  asked,  Who  marched 
with  Sherman  from  the  mountain  to  the  sea  ?  Who  stood  with 
Meade  on  the  victorious  field  of  Gettysburg?  Who  shared 
with  Thomas  in  the  glories  of  Nashville  ?  Who  went  with 
Sheridan  through  the  trials  and  the  triumphs  of  the  blood 
stained  Valley  ? 

General  Grant's  name  will  survive  because  it  is .  indissolubly 
connected  with  the  greatest  military  and  moral  triumph  in 
the  history  of  his  country.  If  the  armies  of  the  Union  had 
ultimately  failed,  the  vast  and  beneficent  designs  of  Mr.  Lincoln 
would  have  been  frustrated.  He  would  have  been  known  in 
history  as  a  statesman  and  philanthropist  who  in  the  cause  of 
humanity  cherished  great  aims  which  he  could  not  realize, 
conceived  great  ends  which  he  could  not  attain  ;  —  as  an  unsuc 
cessful  ruler  whose  policies  distracted  and  dissevered  his  coun 
try  ;  while  General  Grant  would  have  taken  his  place  with  that 
long  and  always  increasing  array  of  able  men  who  are  found 
wanting  in  the  supreme  hour  of  trial. 

But  a  higher  power  controlled  the  result.  God  in  his  gracious 
mercy  had  not  raised  up  these  men  for  works  which  should 
come  to  naught.  In  the  reverent  expression  of  Mr.  Lincoln, 


474  GENERAL  U.  S.  GRANT. 

"  no  human  counsel  devised,  nor  did  any  mortal  hand  work  out 
these  great  things."  In  their  accomplishment  these  human 
agents  were  sustained  by  more  than  human  power,  and  through 
them  great  salvation  was  wrought  for  the  land.  As  long  there 
fore  as  the  American  Union  shall  abide,  with  its  blessings  of 
Law  and  Liberty,  Grant's  name  shall  be  remembered  with 
honor ;  as  long  as  the  slavery  of  human  beings  shall  be  abhorred 
and  the  freedom  of  man  cherished,  Grant's  name  shall  be 
recalled  with  gratitude ;  and  in  the  cycles  of  the  future  the 
story  of  Lincoln's  life  can  never  be  told  without  associating 
Grant  in  the  enduring  splendor  of  his  own  fame. 

General  Grant's  military  supremacy  was  honestly  earned, 
without  factitious  praise,  without  extraneous  help.  He  had  no 
influence  to  urge  his  promotion,  except  such  as  was  attracted 
by  his  own  achievements ;  he  had  no  potential  friends,  except 
those  whom  his  victories  won  to  his  support.  He  rose  more 
rapidly  than  any  other  military  leader  in  history.  In  two  and 
a  half  years  he  was  advanced  from  the  command  of  a  single 
regiment  to  the  supreme  direction  of  a  million  men,  divided 
into  many  great  armies  and  operating  over  an  area  as  large  as 
the  empires  of  Germany  and  Austria  combined.  He  exhibited 
extraordinary  qualities  in  the  field.  Bravery  among  American 
officers  is  a  rule  which  has  happily  had  few  exceptions,  but 
as  an  eminent  general  said,  Grant  possessed  a  quality  above 
bravery  ;  he  had  an  insensibility  to  danger,  apparently  an  uncon 
sciousness  of  fear. 

With  this  rare  quality  General  Grant  combined  an  evenness 
of  judgment,  to  be  depended  upon  in  sunshine  and  in  storm. 
Napoleon  said,  "  The  rarest  attribute  among  generals  is  two 
o'clock  in  the  morning  courage."  "I  mean,"  he  added,  " un 
prepared  courage,  that  which  is  necessary  on  an  unexpected 
occasion  and  which  in  spite  of  the  most  unforeseen  events 
leaves  full  freedom  of  judgment  and  promptness  of  decision/' 
No  better  description  could  be  given  of  the  type  of  courage 
which  distinguished  General  Grant.  His  constant  readiness 
to  fight  was  another  quality  which,  according  to  the  same  high 
authority,  established  his  rank  as  a  commander.  "  Generals," 
said  the  exile  at  St.  Helena,  "  are  rarely  found  eager  to  give 
battle ;  they  choose  their  positions,  consider  their  combina- 


MEMORIAL  SERVICES.  475 

tions,  and  then  indecision  begins."  "Nothing,"  added  this 
greatest  warrior  of  modern  times,  "  nothing  is  so  difficult  as  to 
decide."  General  Grant  in  his  services  in  the  field  never  once 
exhibited  indecision,  and  it  was  this  quality  which  gave  him 
his  crowning  characteristic  as  a  military  leader ;  he  inspired  his 
men  with  a  sense  of  their  invincibility,  and  they  were  thence 
forth  invincible ! 

The  career  of  General  Grant  when  he  passed  from  military 
to  civil  administration  was  marked  by  his  strong  qualities. 
His  Presidency  of  eight  years  was  rilled  with  events  of  magni 
tude,  in  which  if  his  judgment  was  sometimes  questioned, 
his  patriotism  was  always  conceded.  He  entered  upon  his 
office  after  the  angry  disturbance  caused  by  the  unexpected 
course  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  successor,  and  quietly  enforced  a  policy 
which  had  been  for  four  years  the  source  of  embittered  disputa 
tion.  His  election  to  the  Presidency  proved  in  one  important 
aspect  a  landmark  in  the  history  of  the  country.  For  nearly 
fifty  years  preceding  that  event  there  had  been  few  Presidential 
elections  in  which  the  fate  of  the  Union  had  not  in  some 
degree  been  agitated  either  by  the  threats  of  political  malcon 
tents  or  in  the  apprehensions  of  timid  patriots.  That  day  and 
that  danger  had  passed.  The  Union  was  saved  by  the  victory 
of  the  army  commanded  by  General  Grant.  No  menace  of  its 
destruction  has  been  heard  since  General  Grant's  victory  at  the 
polls. 

Death  holds  a  flag  of  truce  over  its  own.  Under  that  flag, 
friend  and  foe  sit  peacefully  together,  passions  are  stilled,  be 
nevolence  is  restored,  wrongs  are  repaired,  justice  is  done.  It 
was  impossible  that  a  career  so  long,  so  prominent,  so  positive 
as  that  of  General  Grant,  should  not  have  provoked  strife  and 
engendered  enmity.  For  more  than  twenty  years  —  from  the 
death  of  Mr.  Lincoln  to  the  close  of  his  own  life  —  General 
Grant  was  the  most  conspicuous  man  in  America  —  one  towards 
whom  leaders  looked  for  leadership,  upon  whom  partisans  built 
their  hopes  of  victory,  to  whom  personal  friends  by  tens  of 
thousands  offered  the  incense  of  sincere  devotion.  It  was 
according  to  the  weakness  and  the  strength  of  human  nature 
that  counter-movements  should  ensue,  that  General  Grant's 
primacy  should  be  challenged,  that  his  party  should  be  resisted, 


476  MEMORIAL  SERVICES. 

that  his  devoted  friends  should  be  confronted  by  jealous  men 
in  his  own  ranks,  and  by  bitter  enemies  in  the  ranks  of  his 
opponents.  But  all  these  passions,  all  these  resentments  are 
buried  in  the  grave  which  to-day  receives  his  remains.  Conten 
tion  over  his  rank  as  a  commander  ceases,  as  Unionist  and 
Confederate  alike  testify  to  his  prowess  in  battle  and  his 
magnanimity  in  peace.  Controversy  over  his  civil  Administra 
tion  closes,  as  Democrat  and  Republican  unite  in  pronouncing 
him  to  have  been  in  every  act  and  in  every  aspiration  an 
American  patriot. 


THE  IRISH  QUESTION.  477 


THE    IRISH    QUESTION. 


[Speech  delivered  by  Mr.  Elaine  before  a  public  meeting  in  Portland,  Maine, 
June  1,  188G.  The  meeting  was  called  to  order  by  His  Honor,  Charles  P. 
Chapman,  Mayor  of  the  city,  and  His  Excellency,  Frederic  Robie,  Governor  of 
the  State,  presided.] 

YOUR  EXCELLENCY  AND  FELLOW-CITIZENS,  —  Directly  after 
the  published  notice  of  this  meeting  I  received  a  letter  from  a 
venerable  friend  in  an  adjacent  county  asking  me,  as  I  was 
announced  to  speak,  to  explain  if  I  could,  just  what  the  "  Irish 
question"  is.  I  appreciate  this  request,  for  on  an  issue  that 
calls  forth  so  much  sympathy  and  so  much  sentiment  among 
those  devoted  to  free  government,  throughout  the  world,  and 
evokes  so  much  passion  among  those  who  are  personally  con 
cerned  in  the  contest,  there  may  be  danger  of  not  giving  suffi 
cient  attention  to  the  simple,  elementary  facts  which  enter  into 
the  subject. 

What  then  is  Home  Rule  ?  It  is  nothing  more  and  nothing 
less  than  that  which  is  enjoyed  among  us  by  every  State  and 
every  Territory  of  the  Union.  Negatively  it  is  what  the  people 
of  Ireland  do  not  enjoy.  In  a  Parliament  of  670  members 
Great  Britain  has  567  and  Ireland  has  103.  Except  with  the 
consent  of  this  Parliament,  in  which  the  Irish  members  are 
outnumbered  by  more  than  five  to  one,  the  people  of  Ireland 
possess  no  Legislative  power  whatever.  They  cannot  incorpo 
rate  a  horse  railroad  company,  or  authorize  a  ferry  over  a 
stream,  or  organize  a  gas  company  to  light  the  streets  of  a  city. 
Apply  that  to  yourselves.  Suppose  the  State  of  Maine  were 
linked  with  the  State  of  New  York  in  a  joint  Legislature  in 
which  New  York  had  five  members  to  Maine's  one.  Suppose 
you  could  not  take  a  step  for  the  improvement  of  your  beauti 
ful  city,  or  this  State  organize  an  association  of  any  kind,  or 


478  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

adopt  any  measure  for  its  own  advancement,  unless  by  the 
permission  of  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the  New  York 
members  I  How  long  do  you  think  the  people  of  Maine  would 
endure  such  a  condition  of  affairs?  Yet  that  illustrates  the 
position  which  Ireland  holds  with  respect  to  England,  except 
that  there  is  one  irritating  feature  in  addition  which  would  not 
apply  to  New  York  and  Maine ;  —  the  centuries  of  oppression 
which  have  inspired  the  people,  of  Ireland  with  a  deep  sense  of 
wrong  on  the  part  of  England. 

If  the  Anglo-Celtic  contention  were  left  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States  to  adjust,  I  suppose  we  should  say,  —  adopt  the 
Federal  system  !  Let  Ireland  have  her  legislature,  let  England 
have  her  legislature,  let  Scotland  have  her  legislature,  let 
Wales  have  her  legislature,  and  then  let  the  Imperial  Parlia 
ment  legislate  for  the  British  Empire.  Let  questions  that  are 
Irish  be  settled  by  Irishmen,  questions  that  are  English  be  set 
tled  by  Englishmen,  questions  that  are  Welsh  be  settled  by 
Welshmen,  and  questions  that  are  Scotch  be  settled  by  Scotch 
men.  Let  questions  that  affect  the  whole  Empire  of  Great 
Britain  be  settled  in  a  Parliament  in  which  the  four  great  con 
stituent  elements  shall  be  impartially  represented.  That  would 
be  our  direct,  shorthand  method  of  settling  the  question.  Under 
that  system  we  have  lived  and  grown  and  prospered  for  more 
than  two  hundred  years  in  the  United  States,  continually  ex 
panding  and  continually  strengthening  our  institutions. 

I  do  not  forget  that  it  would  be  political  empiricism  to 
attempt  to  give  the  details  of  any  measure  that  would  settle 
this  prolonged  strife  between  Great  Britain  and  Ireland.  To 
prescribe  definite  measures  for  a  British  Parliament  would  be 
a  presumption  on  our  part  as  much  as  for  the  English  people  to 
prescribe  definite  measures  for  the  American  Congress.  I  have 
noticed  so  many  errors,  even  among  the  leading  men  of  Great 
Britain,  concerning  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  that  I 
have  been  taught  modesty  in  attempting  to  criticise  the  pro 
cesses  and  the  specific  measures  of  the  British  Parliament.  I 
well  remember  that  Lord  Palmerston  on  a  grave  occasion  dur 
ing  our  Civil  war  informed  the  House  of  Commons  that  "  the 
President  of  the  United  States  could  not  of  his  own  power 
declare  war ;  that  it  required  the  assent  of  the  Senate."  Every 


THE  IRISH  QUESTION.  479 

school-boy  in  America  knows  th?t  it  is  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  both  Senate  and  House,  to  which  the  war  power 
is  given  by  the  Constitution  of  the  Republic,  and  not  to  the 
President  at  all.  But  Lord  Palmerston's  error  was  slight  com 
pared  with  another  which  is  said  to  have  occurred  in  Parlia 
ment.  A  member  in  an  authoritative  manner  assured  the 
House  that  no  law  in  the  United  States  was  valid  until  it  had 
received  the  assent  of  the  Legislatures  of  two-thirds  of  the 
several  States ;  and  a  fellow-member  corrected  him,  saying, 
"  You  are  wrong ;  the  American  Congress  cannot  discuss  any 
measure  until  two-thirds  of  the  Legislatures  of  the  States  shall 
have  already  approved  it."  Admonished  by  these  and  like  in 
stances,  I  refrain  from  any  discussion  of  the  details  of  Mr. 
Gladstone's  Home  Rule  bill.  It  may  not  be  perfect.  It  may 
not  give  to  Ireland  all  that  she  is  entitled  to.  I  only  know 
that  it  is  a  step  in  the  right  direction,  and  that  the  long- 
oppressed  people  of  Ireland  hail  it  as  a  great  and  beneficent 
measure  of  relief.  They  and  their  representatives  understand 
it ;  and  more  than  all  Mr.  Gladstone  understands  it. 

On  the  occasion  of  Lord  John  Russell's  somewhat  famous 
motion  in  the  House  of  Commons  in  1844  to  inquire  into  the 
condition  of  Ireland,  Mr.  Seward  said  (I  mean  Lord  Macaulay, 
but  I  am  sure  that  the  memory  of  neither  will  be  injured  by 
mistaking  one  for  the  other)  Lord  Macaulay  said,  in  one  of  his 
most  eloquent  speeches,  "  You  admit  that  you  govern  Ireland 
not  as  you  govern  England,  not  as  you  govern  Scotland,  but  as 
you  govern  your  new  conquests  in  Scinde  ;  not  by  means  of 
the  respect  which  the  people  feel  for  the  law,  but  by  means  of 
bayonets  and  artillery  and  intrenched  camps."  If  that  were 
true  in  1844  I  am  sure  I  do  not  exaggerate  when  I  say  that  the 
long  period  of  forty-two  years  which  has  intervened  has  served 
to  strengthen  rather  than  to  diminish  the  truth  of  Macaulay's 
words.  And  now  without  in  any  way  denying  the  facts  set 
forth  in  Macaulay's  extraordinary  statement,  Lord  Salisbury 
comes  forward  with  a  remedy  of  an  extremely  harsh  character. 
He  says  in  effect  that  "  the  Irish  can  remain  as  they  are  now 
situated,  or  they  can  emigrate."  But  the  Irish  have  been  in  Ire 
land  as  long  as  Lord  Salisbury's  ancestors  have  been  in  England 
and  I  presume  much  longer.  His  Lordship's  lineage  is  not 


480  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

given  in  Burke's  Peerage  beyond  the  illustrious  Burleigh  of 
Queen  Elizabeth's  day,  and  possibly  his  remote  ancestry  may 
have  been  Danish  pirates  or  peasants  in  Normandy  before  the 
Conquest,  and  centuries  after  the  Irish  people  were  known  in 
Ireland.  I  repeat,  therefore,  Lord  Salisbury's  proposition  is 
extremely  harsh.  Might  we  not,  indeed,  with  good  reason  call 
it  impudent?  Would  it  transgress  courtesy  if  we  called  it 
insolent  ?  Should  we  violate  truth  if  we  called  it  brutal  in  its 
cruelty  ?  We  have  had  occasion  in  this  country  to  know  Lord 
Salisbury  too  well.  He  was  the  bitterest  foe  that  the  Govern 
ment  of  the  United  States  had  in  the  British  Parliament  during 
our  civil  war.  He  coldly  advocated  the  destruction  of  the 
American  Union  simply  as  a  measure  of  increasing  the  com 
merce  and  prosperity  of  Great  Britain.  His  policy  for  Ireland 
and  his  policy  towards  the  United  States  are  essentially  alike 
in  spirit  and  in  temper. 

Another  objection  to  Mr.  Gladstone's  policy  comes  from  the 
Presbyterians  of  Ulster  in  the  form  of  an  appeal  to  the  Pres 
byterians  of  the  United  States  against  granting  the  boon  of 
Home  Rule  to  Ireland.  As  a  Protestant  I  deplore  this  action. 
I  was  educated  under  Presbyterian  influences,  in  a  Presbyte 
rian  college.  I  have  connections  with  that  church  by  blood 
and  affinity  that  began  with  my  life  and  shall  not  cease  until 
my  life  ends.  And  yet  I  am  free  to  say  that  I  should  be 
ashamed  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  America  if  it  re 
sponded  to  an  appeal  which  demands  that  five  millions  of  Irish 
people  shall  be  perpetually  deprived  of  free  government  because 
of  the  remote  and  fanciful  danger  that  a  Dublin  Parliament 
might  interfere  with  the  religious  liberty  of  Presbyterians  in 
Ulster.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  the  Home  Rule  bill  shall  pass,  the 
Dublin  Parliament  will  assume  power  with  a  greater  responsi 
bility  to  the  public  opinion  of  the  world,  than  was  ever  before 
imposed  upon  a  Legislative  body,  because  if  the  Dublin  Parlia 
ment  is  formed  it  will  be  formed  by  reason  of  the  pressure  of 
public  opinion  from  the  liberty-loving  people  of  the  world.  If 
the  Irishmen  who  compose  it  should  take  one  step  against 
perfect  liberty  of  conscience,  or  against  any  Protestant  form  of 
worship,  they  would  fall  under  a  condemnation  even  greater  in 
its  intensity  than  the  friendship  and  sympathy  which  their  own 


THE   IRISH  QUESTION.  481 

sufferings  have  so  widely  called  forth.  But  I  have  not  the 
remotest  fear  that  any  such  result  will  happen.  The  Catholics 
and  the  Presbyterians  of  Ireland  will  live  and  do  just  as  the 
Presbyterians  and  Catholics  of  the  United  States  live  and  do. 
They  will  accord  perfect  liberty  of  conscience  each  to  the 
other,  and  will  be  mutually  governed  by  the  greatest  of  Chris 
tian  virtues,  which  is  charity. 

Mr.  Gladstone's  policy  includes  another  measure.  It  pro 
poses  to  do  something  to  relieve  the  Irish  from  the  intolerable 
oppression  of  absentee  landlordism.  Let  me  here  quote  Lord 
Macaulay  again.  Speaking  of  Ireland  whose  territory  is  less 
than  the  territory  of  the  State  of  Maine,  less  than  thirty-three 
thousand  square  miles  in  extent,  Lord  Macaulay  in  the  same 
speech  from  which  I  have  already  quoted,  says,  "  In  natural 
fertility  Ireland  is  superior  to  any  area  of  equal  size  in  Europe, 
and  is  far  more  important  to  the  prosperity,  the  strength,  the 
dignity  of  the  British  Empire  than  all  our  distant  dependen 
cies  together ;  more  important  than  the  Canadas,  the  West 
Indies,  South  Africa,  Australasia,  Ceylon  and  the  vast  domin 
ions  of  the  Moguls."  I  am  sure  that  if  any  Irish  orator  had 
originally  made  that  declaration  in  America  he  would  have 
been  laughed  at  for  Celtic  exaggeration  and  imagination. 

This  extraordinary  statement  from  Lord  Macaulay  led  me  to 
a  practical  examination  of  Ireland's  resources.  I  went  at  it  in  a 
direct,  farmer-like  way,  and  examined  the  statistics  relating  to 
Ireland's  production.  I  gathered  all  my  information  from  trust 
worthy  British  authority,  and  I  give  you  the  result  of  my 
examination,  frankly  confessing  that  I  was  astounded  at  the 
magnitude  of  the  figures.  In  the  year  1880  Ireland  produced 
four  million  bushels  of  wheat.  But  wheat  has  ceased  to  be  tlie 
crop  of  Ireland.  She  produced  eight  million  bushels  of  barley. 
But  barley  is  not  one  of  the  great  crops  of  Ireland.  She  pro 
duced  seventy  million  bushels  of  oats,  a  very  extraordinary 
yield  considering  Ireland's  small  area.  The  next  item  I  think 
every  one  will  recognize  as  peculiarly  adapted  to  Ireland ; 
of  potatoes,  she  produced  one  hundred  and  ten  millions  of 
bushels  —  within  sixty  millions  of  the  whole  product  of  the- 
United  States  for  the  same  year.  In  turnips  and  mangels 
together  she  produced  one  hundred  and  eighty-five  million 


482  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

bushels  —  vastly  greater  in  weight  than  the  largest  cotton  crop 
of  the  United  States.  She  produced  of  flax  sixty  millions  of 
pounds,  and  of  cabbage  eight  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of 
pounds.  She  produced  of  hay  three  million  eight  hundred 
thousand  tons.  She  had  on  her  thousand  hills  and  in  her  val 
leys  over  four  million  head  of  cattle,  and  in  the  same  pasturage 
she  had  three  million  five  hundred  thousand  head  of  sheep. 
She  had  five  hundred  and  sixty  thousand  horses,  and  two  hun 
dred  and  ten  thousand  asses  and  mules.  During  the  year  1880 
she  exported  to  England  over  seven  hundred  thousand  cattle, 
over  seven  hundred  thousand  sheep,  and  nearly  half  a  million 
swine.  Pray  remember  all  these  came  from  a  territory  not 
quite  so  large  as  the  State  of  Maine,  and  from  an  area  of  cul 
tivation  less  than  twenty  millions  of  acres  in  extent !  But  with 
this  magnificent  abundance  on  this  fertile  land,  rivaling  the 
richness  of  the  ancient  land  of  Goshen,  there  are  men  in  want 
of  food,  and  appealing  to-day  to  the  charity  of  the  stranger  — 
compelled  to  ask  alms  through  their  blood  and  kindred  in 
America.  Why  should  this  sad  condition  occur  in  a  land  that 
overflows  with  plenty,  and  exports  millions  of  produce  to  other 
countries  ?  According  to  the  inspired  command  of  the  great 
Lawgiver  of  Israel,  "  Thou  shalt  not  muzzle  the  ox  that  tread- 
eth  out  the  corn,"  and  St.  Paul,  in  quoting  this  text  in  his  first 
epistle  to  Timothy,  added,  "The  laborer  is  worthy  of  his 
reward."  Yet  many  of  the  men  engaged  in  producing  these 
wonderful  harvests  are  to-day  lacking  bread. 

Mr.  Gladstone  believes,  and  we  hope  more  than  half  of  Great 
Britain  believes  with  him,  that  the  cause  of  this  distress  in 
Ireland  is  to  be  traced  in  large  part  to  the  absentee  ownership 
of  the  land.  Seven  hundred  and  twenty-nine  Englishmen  own 
half  the  land  in  Ireland.  Three  thousand  other  men  own  the 
majority  of  the  other  half  of  the  agricultural  land  of  Ireland. 
Counting  all  the  holdings  there  are  but  nineteen  thousand  two 
hundred  and  eighty-eight  owners  of  land  in  Ireland,  and  this  in 
a  population  of  more  than  five  million  souls.  Produce  that 
condition  of  affairs  in  Maine  or  in  all  New  England  and  the 
distress  here  in  a  few  years  would  be  as  great  as  the  distress  in 
Ireland  to-day.  Mr.  Gladstone,  speaking  as  a  statesman  and  a 
Christian,  says  that  this  intolerable  wrong  must  cease,  and  that 


THE  IRISH  QUESTION.  483 

the  men  who  till  the  land  in  Ireland  must  be  permitted  to 
purchase  and  to  hold  it. 

But  the  story  is  not  half  told.  The  tenants  and  the  peasan 
try  of  this  little  island,  not  so  large,  mind  you,  as  Maine,  pay  a 
rental  of  sixty-five  millions  of  dollars  per  annum  upon  the  land. 
Besides  this,  Ireland  pays  an  imperial  tax  of  thirty-five  millions 
of  dollars  annually,  and  a  local  tax  of  fifteen  millions  more. 
Thus  the  enormous  sum  of  one  hundred  and  fifteen  millions  of 
dollars  is  annually  wrought  out  of  the  bone  and  flesh  and  spirit 
of  the  Irish  people !  No  wonder  that  under  this  burden  many 
lie  crushed  and  down-trodden. 

I  believe  the  day  has  dawned  for  deliverance  from  these  great 
oppressions ;  but  from  the  experience  of  Ireland's  past,  it  is  not 
wise  to  be  too  sanguine  of  a  speedy  result.  For  one,  therefore, 
I  shall  not  be  disappointed  to  see  Mr.  Gladstone's  measures 
defeated  in  this  Parliament.  The  English  members  can  do  it. 
But  there  is  one  thing  which  the  English  members  cannot  do. 
They  cannot  permanently  defy  the  public  opinion  of  the  lovers 
of  justice  and  liberty  throughout  the  civilized  world.  Lord 
Hartington  made  a  very  significant  admission  when  in  a  com 
plaining  tone  he  accused  Mr.  Gladstone  of  having  conceded  so 
much  in  his  measure  that  Irishmen  would  never  take  less.  I 
do  not  know  the  day,  whether  it  be  this  year  or  next  year  or 
the  year  after  that,  or  even  years  beyond,  when  a  final  settle 
ment  shall  be  made ;  but  I  have  confidence  that  if  Mr.  Glad 
stone's  bills  are  defeated  the  settlement  will  never  be  made  on 
as  easy  terms  for  English  landlords  as  the  Premier  now  proposes. 

They  complain  sometimes  in  England  of  such  meetings  as 
we  are  now  holding.  They  say  we  are  transcending  the 
just  and  proper  duties  of  a  friendly  nation.  Even  if  that  were 
true,  the  Englishman  who  remembers  1862-63-64  should  main 
tain  a  discreet  silence.  Yet  I  freely  admit  that  misconduct 
of  Englishmen  during  our  war  would  by  no  means  justify  mis 
conduct  on  our  part  now.  I  do  not  refer  to  that  as  any  pallia 
tion  or  as  any  ground  for  justification  if  we  were  doing  wrong. 
I  do  not  adopt  the  flippant  cry  of  tit  for  tat,  or  the  illogical 
taunt  of  tu  quoque.  Indeed,  there  has  been  nothing  done  in 
America  that  is  not  strictly  within  the  lines  of  justice  and 
strictly  within  the  limits  of  international  obligation.  Nor  is 


484  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

any  thing  done  in  the  United  States  with  the  intention  of  in 
juring  or  with  the  remotest  desire  to  injure  Great  Britain.  The 
English  people  themselves  are  divided,  and  the  American  people 
sympathize  with  what  they  believe  to  be  the  liberal  and  just 
side  of  English  opinion.  We  are  no  more  sympathizing  with 
Ireland  as  against  the  England  of  the  past  than  we  are  sympa 
thizing  with  Gladstone  against  Salisbury  in  the  England  of  the 
present.  Nor  must  it  be  forgotten  that  England  herself,  appar 
ently  not  appreciating  her  own  course  towards  Ireland,  has 
never  failed  in  the  last  fifty  years  to  extend  sympathy  and 
sometimes  the  helping-hand  to  nationalities  in  Europe  strug 
gling  to  be  freed  from  the  clutch  of  tyranny.  When  Hungary 
resisted  the  rule  of  Austria,  Kossuth  was  as  much  a  hero  in 
England  as  he  was  in  America.  When  Lombardy  raised  the 
standard  of  revolt  against  the  House  of  Hapsburg,  the  British 
Ministry  could  scarcely  be  held  back  from  open  expression  of 
sympathy.  When  Sicily  revolted  against  the  reign  of  the 
Neapolitan  Bourbons,  English  sjanpathy  was  so  active  that  Lord 
Palmerston  was  openly  accused  of  permitting  guns  from  Wool 
wich  Arsenal  to  be  smuggled  to  the  Island  of  Sicily  to  aid  the 
insurrection  against  King  Bomba. 

The  American  people  are  therefore  justified  by  the  example 
of  England,  and  apart  from  any  consideration  except  the  broad 
one  of  human  fellowship,  stand  forth  as  the  friends  of  Ireland 
in  her  present  distress.  They  do  not  stand  forth  as  Democrats. 
They  do  not  stand  forth  as  Republicans.  They  do  not  stand 
forth  as  Protestants.  They  do  not  stand  forth  as  Catholics. 
But  they  stand  forth  as  citizens  of  a  Free  Republic,  sympathiz 
ing  with  freedom  throughout  the  world. 

If  I  had  a  word  of  personal  advice  to  give,  or  if  I  were  in  a 
position  to  give  authoritative  counsel,  it  would  be  this:  the 
time  is  coming  that  will  probably  try  the  patience  and  the 
self-control  of  the  Irish  people  more  severely  than  they  have 
been  tried  in  any  other  stage  in  the  progress  of  their  long 
struggle.  My  advice  is  that  by  all  means  and  with  every 
personal  and  moral  influence  which  can  be  used,  all  acts  of  vio 
lence  be  suppressed.  Irishmen  have  earned  the  approving 
opinion  of  that  part  of  the  Christian  world  which  believes  in 
free  government.  Let  them  have  a  care  that  nothing  be  done 


THE  IRISH  QUESTION.  485 

to  divide  this  opinion.  Let  no  act  of  imprudence  or  rashness  or 
personal  outrage  or  public  violence  produce  a  re-action.  Never 
has  a  cause  been  conducted  with  a  clearer  head  or  with  better 
judgment  in  its  parliamentary  relations  than  that  which  has 
been  conducted  by  Mr.  Parnell.  I  regard  it  as  a  very  fortunate 
circumstance  that  Mr.  Parnell  is  a  Protestant.  It  has  been  the 
singular,  and  in  many  respects  the  happy  fortune  of  Ireland  in 
every  trouble  to  be  so  led  that  generous-minded  men  the  world 
over  might  see  that  it  was  not  sectarian  strife,  but  a  struggle 
for  freedom  and  good  government.  How  often  has  the  leader 
in  Irish  agitation  been  a  Protestant :  —  Dean  Swift,  Molyneux, 
Robert  Emmet,  Theobald  Wolf  Tone,  Lord  Edward  Fitzgerald, 
Henry  Grattan,  and  I  might  add  many  names  to  the  list.  These 
patriots  carried  the  Irish  cause  high  above  and  bej'ond  all 
considerations  of  sectarian  difference  and  founded  it  on  "the 
rights  of  human  nature,"  as  Jefferson  denned  the  American 
cause  in  our  own  Revolutionary  period.  Thus  led  and  thus 
guarded  the  Irish  cause  must  prevail.  There  has  never  been 
a  contest  for  liberty  by  any  section  of  the  British  Empire 
composed  of  white  men  that  was  not  successful  in  the  end,  if 
the  white  men  were  united.  By  union  the  Thirteen  Colonies 
gained  their  independence.  By  union  Canada  gained  every  con 
cession  she  wished  upon  the  eve  of  a  revolution,  and  there  is 
nothing  to-day  which  Canada  could  ask  this  side  of  absolute 
separation  that  would  not  be  granted  for  the  asking. 

I  have  only  one  more  word  to  say,  and  that  again  is  a  word 
of  advice.  The  men  of  Irish  blood  in  this  country  should  keep 
this  question  as  it  has  been  kept  thus  far,  out  of  our  own  polit 
ical  controversies.  They  should  mark  any  man  as  an  enemy 
who  seeks  to  use  it  for  personal  or  for  partisan  advancement. 
To  the  sacredness  of  your  cause  conducted  in  this  spirit,  you 
can  in  the  lofty  language  of  the  most  eloquent  of  Irishmen, 
Edmund  Burke  —  "you  can  attest  the  retiring  generations,  you 
can  attest  the  advancing  generations,  between  whom  we  stand 
as  a  link  in  the  great  chain  of  eternal  order."  Conducted  in 
that  spirit  you  can  justify  your  cause  before  earthly  tribunals, 
and  you  can  carry  it  with  pure  heart  and  strong  faith  before 
the  judgment  seat  of  God. 


486  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 


POLITICAL    ISSUES    IN    1886. 


[Speech  delivered  by  Mr.  Elaine  at  a  Republican  mass  meeting  held  at  Sebago 
Lake,  Aug.  24,  1886.] 

FELLOW-CITIZENS,  —  A  new  Administration  of  the  National 
Government  is  usually  unvexed  in  its  first  year,  except  by  the 
importunities  and  the  disappointments  of  its  own  supporters. 
The  people  at  large  give  small  heed,  for  the  time,  to  public  affairs, 
and  the  discussion  of  political  issues  is  left  as  a  somewhat  per 
functory  task  to  opposing  partisans  in  Congress.  This  season 
of  apparent  indifference  is  caused  in  part  by  the  natural  ebb  of 
the  tide  which  flowed  so  high  in  the  preceding  national  election, 
and  in  part  also  by  the  American  instinct  of  fair  play  which 
demands  that  the  party  freshly  installed  may  have  free  oppor 
tunity  and  full  time  to  lay  out  its  ground  and  mature  its 
measures.  This  period  of  popular  inaction  is  thus  not  only 
advantageous  for  rest,  but  it  prepares  those  who  are  the  ulti 
mate  arbiters  in  all  matters  of  public  concern  to  give  patient 
hearing  to  fair  argument  when  the  time  arrives  for  popular 
discussion. 

The  approaching  election  of  a  governor,  of  four  representa 
tives  to  a  new  Congress,  and  of  a  legislature  that  shall  choose  a 
senator  ot  the  United  States,  revives  the  interest  in  political 
topics  in  Maine,  and  subjects  to  inquiry  the  various  issues 
which  separate  our  people  into  distinct  political  parties.  Have 
the  old  differences  between  the  Republican  and  Democratic 
organizations  been  adjusted,  or  have  they  grown  more  palpable 
and  more  pronounced  ?  Are  the  questions,  over  which  the 
Republicans  and  the  Democrats  have  waged  a  long  contest, 
to  be  now  abandoned?  Is  litigation  in  the  court  of  public 
opinion  to  be  discontinued,  and  a  settlement  effected  by  enter 
ing  "neither  party  "  on  the  People's  docket  ?  Or,  on  the  other 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  IN  1886.    •  487 

hand,  do  the  American  people  just  now  begin  to  see  with  clearer 
vision  the  aims  and  intentions,  the  methods  and  the  measures 
of  each  party,  and  are  they  waking  to  a  new  and  more  earnest 
struggle  over  policies  that  are  irreconcilable,  over  measures 
that  are  inherently  and  inevitably  in  conflict  ?  Let  us  inquire 
concerning  these  things  in  a  spirit  of  candor ! 

It  is  in  the  first  place  especially  worthy  of  observation  that 
in  the  history  of  industrial  questions  no  party  in  time  of  peace 
has  ever  been  more  united  in  support  of  a  policy  than  is  the 
Republican  party  in  support  of  a  Protective  Tariff  to-day.  At 
the  late  session  of  Congress  a  measure  known  as  the  Morrison 
Tariff  Bill,  designed  first  to  weaken  and  ultimately  to  destroy  the 
Protective  policy,  was  resisted  by  so  compact  an  organization 
of  the  Republican  members  that  a  single  vote  from  New  York 
and  two  or  three  votes  from  Minnesota  were  all  that  broke  the 
absolute  unanimity  of  the  party.  This  was  rendered  still  more 
striking  by  the  fact  that  the  organs  of  Republican  opinion  in 
New  York  and  Minnesota  declare  that  these  exceptional  votes 
were  adverse  to  the  wishes  of  a  large  majority  of  those  who 
elected  the  dissenting  members. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  majority  of  the  Democratic  members 
supported  the  Free  Trade  side  of  the  question ;  but  a  small 
minority,  uniting  with  the  Republicans,  found  themselves  able 
to  defeat  the  measure.  Thereupon  the  Democratic  papers 
quite  generally  throughout  the  country  denounced  the  recu 
sants  as  unfaithful  to  the  creed  of  their  party,  and  the  journal 
in  New  York  which  is  said  to  reflect  the  views  of  the  National 
Administration,  gave  formal  notice  to  all  Democrats,  North 
and  South,  who  lean  towards  the  policy  of  Protection,  that 
they  must  revise  their  opinions  or  leave  the  party,  because 
with  their  views  they  can  find  no  sympathy  in  Democratic 
ranks  and  no  standing-room  on  Democratic  platforms. 

These  leading  facts  indicate  that  the  policy  of  Protection 
versus  Free  Trade,  is  an  issue  shaped  and  determined  no  longer 
by  sectional  preference  —  but  has  become  general  and  National 
—  affording  a  distinct,  well-marked  line  of  division  between  the 
Republican  and  Democratic  parties.  I  do  not  recall  these  facts 
as  preparatory  to  an  analytic  discussion  of  the  Protective  sya*- 


488  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

tern,  but  with  the  view  of  applying  them  to  certain  current 
movements  and  current  events. 

The  hostility  of  the  Democratic  party  to  Protection  has 
entailed  upon  the  country  a  vast  loss  and  has  in  many  ways 
obstructed  the  progress  and  development  of  certain  sections. 
Since  the  financial  panic  of  1873  and  the  contemporaneous 
solidification  of  the  Southern  vote,  the  Democratic  party  has, 
with  the  exception  of  a  single  Congress,  held  control  of  the 
House  of  Representatives.  The  power  to  originate  revenue 
bills  has  been  exclusively  in  their  hands,  and  they  have  used  it 
to  the  confusion,  the  detriment,  in  many  instances  to  the  de 
struction  of  new  enterprises  throughout  the  Union.  Confi 
dence  once  shaken  is  hard  to  restore,  and  the  schemes  of 
improvement  which  have  been  abandoned  within  the  past  ten 
years  on  account  of  the  uncertainty  of  our  revenue  laws,  con 
stantly  menaced  by  the  Democratic  party  in  Congress,  would 
have  caused  prosperity  and  happiness  in  many  communities 
that  have  felt  the  discouraging  influence  of  dull  times. 

The  Democratic  party  is  continually  referring  to  the  com 
parative  dullness  in  business,  largely  developed  by  their  own 
course  in  Congress,  as  an  argument  against  the  policy  of  Pro 
tection.  But  it  is  worth  while  to  contrast  the  condition  of  the 
country  in  this  year  of  grace  with  its  condition  the  year  before 
the  Republicans  succeeded  in  enacting  their  first  Protective 
Tariff;  to  contrast  the  financial  condition  at  the  beginning  of 
1861  and  at  the  beginning  of  1886  of  the  nine  States  which 
still  do  the  larger  amount  of  manufacturing  for  the  country, 
and  which  did  nearly  all  of  it  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago  —  New 
York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania  and  the  six  States  of  New 
England.  In  1861  the  country  had  been  for  nearly  a  generation 
under  Free  Trade,  and  the  amount  which  the  people  had  accu 
mulated  in  their  savings  banks  during  that  long  period  was  less 
than  one  hundred  and  sixty  millions  of  dollars.  In  the  same 
States  on  the  first  day  of  January,  1886,  the  aggregate  amount 
in  the  savings  banks  was  over  one  thousand  and  twenty  millions 
of  dollars.  The  difference  in  the  amount  of  savings  in  Maine 
for  the  two  periods  show  that  in  January,  1861,  the  people  had 
less  than  a  million  and  a  half  in  bank,  while  in  January,  1886, 
the  people  had  over  thirty-six  millions  in  bank. 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  IX  1886.  489 

During  this  period  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  increase 
of  population  in  the  nine  States  has  been  about  thirty-five  per 
cent,  while  the  increase  of  deposits  in  savings  banks  has  been 
at  the  rate  of  eight  hundred  per  cent. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  seventy-five  per  cent  of  this  vast 
sum  belongs  to  the  wage-workers.  The  vast  number  of  deposi 
tors  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  in  Maine,  where  the 
aggregate  population  is  less  than  seven  hundred  thousand,  the 
thirty-six  millions  of  deposits  are  divided  between  110,000  per 
sons,  showing  that  about  one  in  six  of  the  total  population  is  a 
depositor  and  that  the  average  to  each  is  about  three  hundred 
and  twenty  dollars. 

The  figures  with  which  we  are  dealing  have  been  confined  to 
the  nine  States  named,  because  in  18G1  the  manufacturing  of 
this  country  was  mainly  confined  to  those  States.  But  the 
economic  fact  that  a  thousand  millions  of  dollars  had  been  saved 
by  the  workers  within  their  borders  becomes  still  more  signifi 
cant  when  we  remember  that  since  1861  the  great  body  of 
North-western  States  under  the  inspiring  influence  of  a  Protec 
tive  Tariff  have  in  turn  developed  an  enormous  aggregation  of 
manufacturing  industries.  Ohio,  Indiana,  Michigan,  Illinois, 
Wisconsin,  are  no  longer  devoted  to  agriculture  solely,  but 
have  a  mass  of  manufacturing  industries  larger  in  value  than 
all  the  manufactures  in  all  the  States  of  the  Union  on  the  day 
Mr.  Lincoln  was  first  inaugurated. 

Still  another  comparison  may  be  made  even  more  embarrass 
ing  to  the  Free  Trade  doctrinaires.  While  the  American  work 
men  in  nine  States,  working  under  a  protective  tariff,  have  over 
a  thousand  millions  of  dollars  in  savings  banks,  the  vastly 
greater  mass  of  workingmen  in  England,  Ireland,  Scotland 
and  Wales,  the  whole  United  Kingdom,  all  working  under  free 
trade  have  less  than  four  hundred  millions  of  dollars  in  both 
savings  banks  and  postal  banks.  These  figures  and  these 
dollars  are  the  most  persuasive  of  arguments  and  the  conclu 
sion  they  teach  is  so  plain  that  the  running  man  may  read. 

The  leading  feature  in  the  industrial  field  of  1885  and  1886 
is  the  discontent  among  the  men  who  earn  their  bread  by 
skilled  and  by  unskilled  labor.  Uneasiness  and  uncertainty  are 


490  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

found  on  all  sides ;  there  are  wise  aims  among  many  and  among 
not  a  few  there  is  aimlessness,  with  its  inevitable  result  of  dis 
appointment  and  discouragement.  The  man  who  could  by  any 
prescription  remove  this  discontent  and  at  once  restore  har 
mony  and  happiness  would  be  philosopher,  patriot  and  states 
man.  The  man  who  professes  to  be  able  to  do  it  will  generally 
prove  to  be  a  compound  of  empiricism  and  ignorance.  But  in 
the  end,  perhaps  by  toilsome  paths,  with  many  blunders  and 
some  wrongs,  no  one  need  doubt  that  sound,  just  and  right 
eous  conclusions  will  be  reached.  Perfect  freedom  to  test  the 
virtues  and  secure  the  advantage  of  organization,  to  exert 
strong  power  through  combination,  are  certainly  among  the 
common  rights  of  all  men  under  a  Republican  government. 
Labor  associations  have  the  same  sanction  and  the  same  rights 
that  airy  form  of  incorporation  may  assume  —  subject,  as  all 
must  be,  to  the  condition  that  the  persons  and  property  of 
others  shall  be  respected.  It  is  well  for  every  citizen  of  a  free 
government  to  keep  before  his  eyes  and  in  his  thoughts  the 
honored  maxim  that  "  the  liberty  of  one  man  must  always  end 
where  the  rights  of  another  man  begin." 

I  have  no  new  nostrums  to  offer  for  the  cure  of  labor 
troubles.  I  have  no  quack  remedies  to  propose.  I  am  a  firm 
believer  in  the  efficacy  of  the  Protective  Tariff,  and  I  can  look 
back  with  satisfaction  to  my  record  in  Congress  as  never 
blotted  by  a  single  vote  that  was  not  friendly  to  the  interests 
of  American  Labor.  I  never  promised  any  thing  when  I  was  a 
candidate  for  a  public  office,  and  now  as  a  private  citizen  I 
have  no  temptation  to  flatter  any  man  or  state  any  thing  else 
than  the  simple  truth  as  I  see  the  truth.  It  is  in  this  spirit 
that  I  offer  some  suggestions  which  seem  to  me  worthy  of 
attention  under  the  present  aspect  of  the  Labor  question. 

In  what  may  be  termed  the  political  creed  of  the  various 
Labor  organizations  I  have  observed  an  apparent  reluctance  to 
recognize  some  pertinent  and,  as  I  think,  controlling  facts, — 
facts  which  in  a  spirit  of  friendship  and  candor  I  beg  to  point 
out.  I  read,  a  few  days  since,  in  a  creed  put  forth  by  an  asso 
ciation  of  Knights  of  Labor,  in  another  State,  a  recital  of 
eighteen  distinct  ends  which  they  desired  to  secure  or  main 
tain  by  national  legislation.  Among  these  there  was  not  the 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  IX  1886.  491 

slightest  mention  of  a  protective  tariff.  That  might  have  been 
accidental ;  or  it  might  have  implied  a  perfect  sense  of  safety 
in  regard  to  the  continuance  of  the  tariff;  or  it  might  have 
meant  that  those  who  proclaimed  the  creed  are  indifferent  to  the 
fate  of  protection. 

In  any  event  it  would  be  well  for  the  Labor  organizations 
diligently  to  inquire  and  ascertain  how  the  wages  of  labor  in 
the  United  States  can  be  kept  above  the  rate  of  wages  in  Eng 
land,  Germany  and  France  on  the  same  articles  of  manu 
facture  without  the  intervention  of  protective  duties?  With 
the  present  cheap  modes  of  interchange  and  transportation  of 
all  commodities,  I  inquire  of  these  gentlemen  how,  under  the 
rule  of  fi%ee  trade,  can  wages  in  the  United  States  be  kept 
above  the  general  standard  of  European  wages  ?  I  do  not  stop 
for  the  detail  of  argument,  I  only  desire  to  lodge  the  question 
in  the  minds  of  the  millions  of  American  laborers  who  have 
it  in  their  power  to  maintain  protection  or  to  inaugurate  free 
trade  ;  who  have  it  in  their  power  to  uphold  the  party  of  pro 
tection,  or  the  party  of  free  trade. 

Another  portentous  fact  has  been  omitted  —  so  far  as  I  have 
observed  —  from  the  consideration  and  judgment  of  the  Labor 
organizations.  They  seem  to  have  taken  little  or  no  heed  of 
the  existence  of  a  million  and  a  half  of  able-bodied  laborers 
in  the  South  with  dark  skins,  but  with  expanding  intellect, 
increasing  intelligence  and  growing  ambition.  While  these 
men  were  slaves,  working  in  the  corn  and  cotton  fields,  in 
the  rice  swamps  and  on  the  sugar  plantations  of  the  South, 
the  skilled  labor  of  the  Northern  States  felt  no  competition 
from  them.  But  since  they  became  freemen  there  has  been  a 
great  change  in  the  variety  and  skill  of  the  labor  performed  by 
colored  men  in  the  South.  The  great  mass  are,  of  course,  still 
engaged  in  agricultural  work,  but  thousands  and  tens  of  thou 
sands,  and  in  fact  hundreds  of  thousands,  have  entered  and  are 
entering  the  mechanical  and  semi-mechanical  field.  They  are 
making  pig  and  bar  iron  in  Tennessee  and  Alabama.  They 
are  manufacturing  cotton  in  Georgia  and  the  Carolinas.  They 
are  brick-layers  and  plasterers  everywhere ;  they  are  carpenters 
and  painters ;  they  are  blacksmiths ;  they  make  wagons  and 
carts ;  they  make  cigars ;  they  tan  leather  and  make  harness ; 


492  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

they  are  firemen  and  pilots  on  river  boats ;  they  calk  vessels 
in  Southern  ports ;  they  lay  railroad  track ;  they  are  switchmen 
and  section  men  on  the  line,  and  firemen  on  locomotives.  In 
fact,  they  are  generally  entering  all  the  avenues  and  channels 
of  skilled  labor.  Of  course  they  are  underpaid.  They  receive 
far  less  than  has  been  paid  in  years  past  to  Northern  mechanics 
for  similar  work.  They  are  not  able  to  take  part  in  making 
laws  for  their  own  protection,  and  they  are  consequently  and 
inevitably  unable  to  maintain  a  fair  standard  of  wages  or  to 
receive  a  fair  proportion  of  their  proper  earnings. 

I  do  not  dwell  on  this  subject  at  length,  though  it  could 
easily  be  presented  in  exasperating  detail.  I  mention  it  only 
to  place  it  before  the  Labor  organizations  of  the  North,  with 
this  question :  Do  you  suppose  that  you  can  permanently  main 
tain  in  the  Northern  States  one  scale  of  prices  when  just 
beyond  an  imaginary  line  on  the  south  of  us  a  far  different 
scale  of  prices  is  paid  for  labor?  The  colored  mechanic  of 
the  South  is  not  so  skillful  a  workman  nor  so  intelligent  a  man 
as  you  are,  but  if  he  will  lay  brick  in  a  new  cotton  factory  in 
South  Carolina  at  half  the  price  you  are  paid,  if  he  will  paint 
and  plaster  it  at  the  same  low  rate,  he  is  inevitably  building  up 
an  industry  which,  if  the  same  rate  of  wages  be  maintained 
throughout,  will  drive  you  out  of  business  or  lead  you  to  the 
gates  of  his  own  poverty. 

The  situation  is  therefore  plainly  demonstrable  :  —  first,  if 
the  Democratic  party  shall  succeed  in  what  they  have  been 
annually  attempting  for  twelve  years  past,  destroying  the  Pro 
tective  Tariff,  the  artisans  of  the  United  States  will  be  thrown 
into  direct  competition  with  the  highly  skilled  and  miserably 
paid  labor  of  Europe.  Second,  If  the  Democratic  party  shall 
be  able  to  hold  control  of  the  Government,  the  colored  laborer 
in  the  South  will  remain  where  the  Southern  Democrats  have 
placed  him  politically,  subject  to  the  will  of  the  white  man, 
and  unable  to  fix  the  price  or  command  the  value  of  his  labor. 
The  colored  man  will,  therefore,  under  those  conditions  remain 
a  constant  quantity  in  the  labor  market,  receiving  inadequate 
compensation  for  his  own  toil,  and  steadily  crowding  down  the 
compensation  of  white  labor,  if  not  to  his  own  level  yet  far 
below  its  just  and  adequate  standard. 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  IN  1886.  493 

At  every  turn,  therefore,  whether  it  be  in  exposing  the  white 
American  laborer  to  the  danger  of  European  competition  by 
destroying  the  Protective  Tariff,  or  whether  it  be  in  reducing 
the  wages  of  the  white  man  by  unfairly  making  the  colored 
laborer  his  fatal  competitor  in  all  the  fields  of  toil,  the  Demo 
cratic  party  North  and  South  appears  as  the  enemy  of  every 
interest  of  the  American  workman.  With  that  party  placed 
in  full  power  and  with  all  its  measures  achieved,  the  wages  of 
the  American  laborer  will  fall  as  certainly  as  effect  follows 
cause. 

The  Fishery  dispute  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  has  passed  through  many  singular  phases  in  the  last 
seventy  years  but  never  before,  I  think,  were  the  circumstances 
of  the  controversy  so  extraordinary  as  we  find  existing  at  this 
moment.  Before  discussing  the  merits  of  the  American  case 
it  may  be  interesting  to  recall  the  process  by  which  the  ques 
tion  has  been  placed  in  its  present  attitude. 

On  the  thirty-first  day  of  January,  1885,  several  months 
before  the  fishing  season  of  that  year  began,  President  Arthur 
notified  the  people  by  public  proclamation  that  the  fishery 
articles  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington  (1871)  had,  according 
to  the  conditions  of  the  treaty,  been  formally  terminated. 
The  President  made  plain  and  unmistakable  the  results  that 
would  flow  from  this  action  by  warning  all  citizens  of  the 
United  States  that  "  none  of  the  privileges  secured  to  them  by 
these  articles  will  exist  after  July  1st,  1885."  This  termination 
of  the  treaty  had  been  decreed  by  an  overwhelming  vote  of 
both  branches  of  Congress  and  was  now  made  final  and  effec 
tive  by  the  President's  proclamation.  This  course  had  been 
earnestly  desired  by  the  American  fishermen,  was  fully  under 
stood  by  them  and  was  completed  without  protest  from  a  single 
citizen  of  the  United  States. 

Five  weeks  after  President  Arthur's  proclamation  was  issued, 
his  term  closed,  and  with  the  new  Administration  Mr.  Bayard 
became  Secretary  of  State.  In  three  or  four  days  after  lie  had 
been  installed  in  office  the  British  minister,  Honorable  Sack- 
ville  West,  submitted  a  proposal  to  continue  the  reciprocal 
fishing  arrangements  until  Jan.  1,  1886.  After  a  brief  corre- 


494  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

spondence  Mr.  Bayard  accepted  the  offer.  In  other  words, 
Mr.  West  and  Mr.  Bayard  made  a  treaty  of  their  own  by  which 
American  fishermen  were  to  be  allowed  to  fish  in  British  waters 
six  months  longer,  and  British  fishermen  should  freely  fish  in 
American  waters  for  the  same  period.  When  Mr.  West  first 
proposed  this  extension  of  time,  in  his  note  of  March  12,  he 
based  his  suggestion  solely  upon  the  generous  ground  that  as 
the  treaty  would  terminate  during  the  fishing  season  "  consid 
erable  hardship  might  be  occasioned  to  American  fishermen  if 
they  were  compelled  to  desist  from  fishing  at  that  time."  This 
exact  point  had  been  foreseen,  had  been  carefully  considered 
by  Congress,  by  the  President,  by  the  State  Department,  and 
by  the  American  fishermen  themselves.  In  popular  parlance, 
they  had  "  discounted  it "  and  were  fully  prepared  for  it,  when 
to  their  exceeding  surprise  the  British  minister  seemed  to  be 
moved  with  compassion  for  their  possible  sufferings.  Appar 
ently  without  other  motive  than  disinterested  benevolence, 
Mr.  West  was  anxious  to  allow  them  six  months  more  of  that 
precious  time  which  the  Halifax  Commission  had  declared  to 
be  worth  to  American  fishermen  a  half  million  dollars  per 
annum. 

But  reading  a  little  farther  in  this  remarkable  diplomatic  cor 
respondence,  we  find  that  Mr.  West  instead  of  acting  from 
motives  of  pure  generosity  towards  American  fishermen  was 
really  paving  the  way  for  a  shrewd  trade  and  a  new  treaty. 
A  formal  understanding  between  himself  and  Mr.  Bayard  was 
reduced  to  writing,  showing  that  he  received  a  large  considera 
tion  for  leaving  the  British  waters  open  to  American  fishermen 
six  months  longer.  The  consideration  was  a  pledge  from  Mr. 
Bayard  under  date  of  June  19,  1885,  that  the  President  would 
at  the  next  session  of  Congress  "  recommend  the  appointment 
of  a  Commission  in  which  the  Governments  of  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  shall  be  respectively  represented, 
charged  with  the  consideration  and  settlement  upon  a  just, 
equitable  and  honorable  basis  of  the  entire  questions  of  the 
fishing  rights  of  the  two  Governments  and  of  their  respective 
citizens  on  the  coasts  of  the  United  States  and  British  North 
America."  The  stipulation  was  definite  and  reduced  to  writing 
that  "  in  view  and  in  consideration  of  such  promised  recommends 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  IX  1886.  495 

tions  ly  the  President"  the  British  would  for  the  ensuing  six 
months  enforce  no  restrictive  regulations  against  American 
fishermen.  In  addition  to  all  this,  Mr.  Bayard  gave  significant 
intimation  to  Mr.  West  that  the  refunding  of  duties  meanwhile 
collected  under  our  custom  laws  upon  Canadian  fish  might  be 
brought  before  the  Commission  thus  promised. 

Accordingly,  in  the  following  December,  six  and  a  half 
months  after  Mr.  Bayard's  memorandum  pledge  that  the  Presi 
dent  would  make  the  recommendation  to  Congress,  the  President 
actually  did  incorporate  it  in  his  annual  message  and  gave 
it  in  language  which  was  a  transcript  verbatim  of  the  words 
which  Mr.  Bayard  gave  to  Mr.  West.  It  would  certainly  be 
apart  from  my  desire  to  pass  any  personal  criticism  upon  the 
President,  of  whom  I  wish  at  all  times  to  speak  in  terms  of 
respect,  but  viewing  this  as  a  public  question  and  speaking 
only  with  the  freedom  of  a  private  citizen,  I  must  express  my 
belief  that  this  transaction  was  throughout  extraordinary  and 
unprecedented.  It  was  extraordinary  and  unprecedented  and 
altogether  beyond  the  proper  power  of  a  Secretary  of  State  in 
the  recess  of  Congress  to  revive  any  part  of  a  treaty  which 
Congress  had  expressly  terminated ;  it  was  extraordinary  for 
a  Secretary  of  State  to  begin  negotiations  for  the  renewal  of  a 
treaty  which  every  department  of  Government  had  just  united 
in  annulling ;  it  was  extraordinary  for  a  Secretary  of  State  to 
enter  into  a  trade  with  a  foreign  Minister  for  a  present  benefit 
to  be  paid  for  by  the  future  action  of  the  Government;  and 
most  of  all  was  it  extraordinary  that  a  pledge  should  be  given 
to  a  foreign  Government  that  the  President  of  the  United 
States  should  in  the  future  —  more  than  a  half-year  distant  — 
make  a  specific  recommendation,  on  a  specific  subject,  in  specific 
words  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  That  pledge  was 
given  and  was  held  in  the  British  foreign  office  in  London,  and 
it  took  from  the  President  all  the  power  of  reconsideration 
which  the  lapse  of  time  and  the  change  of  circumstances  might 
suggest  and  impose.  It  robbed  the  President  pro  hac  vice  of 
his  liberty  as  an  executive.  He  was  no  longer  free  to  insert 
in  his  annual  message  of  December  what  might  then  seem  ex 
pedient  on  the  question  of  the  fisheries,  but  was  under  personal 
obligations  to  insert  word  for  word,  letter  for  letter,  the  exact 


496  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

recommendation  which  the  Secretary  of  State  in  the  preced 
ing  month  of  June  had  promised  and  pledged  to  the  British 
Ministry.  The  matter  presents  a  curious  speculation  in  regard 
to  the  working  of  our  Government.  What,  for  instance,  could 
or  should  the  President  have  done,  if  before  the  date  of  his 
annual  message  he  had  become  convinced,  as  a  large  majority 
of  the  Senate  were  convinced,  that  it  was  not  expedient  to 
organize  an  International  Commission  on  the  Fisheries.  He 
would  then  have  found  himself  embarrassed  between  this  pledge 
given  to  a  foreign  Government  in  June  and  his  convictions 
of  duty  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  in  the  ensuing 
December. 

Congress  could  not  be  induced  to  concur  in  the  President's 
recommendation  for  an  International  Commission  on  the  Fish 
eries,  and  so  the  scheme  for  which  Mr.  Bayard  and  Mr.  West 
had  made  their  extraordinary  preparations  came  to  naught.  It 
would  have  been  strange  indeed  if  any  other  result  had  been 
reached.  Congress  had  for  several  years  been  diligently  en 
deavoring  to  free  the  country  from  the  burden  of  the  treaty 
provisions  respecting  the  fisheries,  and  it  could  not  be  expected 
that  they  would  willingly  initiate  measures  for  a  new  treaty 
that  would  probably  in  the  end  be  filled  with  provisions  as 
odious  and  burdensome  to  the  American  fishing  interest  as 
those  from  which  they  had  just  escaped. 

As  soon  as  it  became  evident  that  Congress  would  not  accept 
the  proposal  for  a  new  commission,  the  Government  of  the 
Dominion  of  Canada,  with  the  presumed  approval  of  the  Im 
perial  Government,  began  a  series  of  outrages  upon  American 
fishing-vessels  and  fishing-crews,  —  seeking  in  every  way  to  de 
stroy  their  business  and  to  deprive  them  of  their  fishing-rights. 
That  course  continues  to  this  day,  and  is  adopted  by  the  Cana 
dian  Government  with  the  deliberate  intention  and  obvious 
expectation  of  forcing  concessions  from  this  Government.  A 
few  facts  in  the  long  controversy  over  the  fishery  question  may 
be  pertinently  recalled  as  bearing  on  the  present  situation. 

Let  us  frankly  admit  at  the  outset  that  we  are  governed  in 
this  matter  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of  1818.  Of  the  injus 
tice  of  which  this  country  was  made  the  victim  before  that 
treaty  was  ratified,  we  need  not  here  and  now  speak.  We 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  IX   1886.  497 

accepted  the  treaty  of  1818  in  good  faith;  and  though  it  largely 
curtailed  privileges  which  were  the  birthright  of  American 
fishermen,  those  hardy  men  went  to  work  under  it,  and  by 
their  enterprise  largely  expanded  their  business,  —  increasing 
in  an  amazing  ratio  the  number  of  vessels,  their  aggregate 
tonnage,  and  the  number  of  men  engaged  in  the  hazardous 
calling.  This  rapid  progress  alarmed  the  Canadians,  and  with 
the  view  of  repressing  rivalry  and  crippling  American  fisher 
men,  a  new  construction  was  applied  to  the  treaty  nearly  a 
quarter  of  a  century  after  it  had  been  in  peaceful  operation. 

From  1841  to  1845  it  was  for  the  first  time  contended  by 
Great  Britain  that  the  American  right  to  fish  within  three  miles 
from  shore,  meant  three  miles  from  the  headlands  which  marked 
the  entrance  to  bays.  On  this  new  and  strained  construction 
of  the  treaty,  they  sought  to  exclude  American  fishermen 
even  from  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  which  is  sixty  miles  wide  at 
its  mouth.  After  a  long  diplomatic  discussion,  maintained 
with  signal  ability  by  Edward  Everett,  our  Minister  at  London, 
Lord  Aberdeen  —  a  name  identified  with  justice  and  magna 
nimity  in  more  than  one  generation  —  then  at  the  head  of  the 
British  Foreign  Office,  acknowledged  that  the  ground  taken  by 
England  in  regard  to  the  Bay  of  Fundy  was  indefensible,  the 
Canadian  position  was  reversed,  and  the  bay  was  re-opened  to 
American  fishermen. 

But  the  design  of  coercing  the  United  States  into  opening 
her  markets  to  Canadian  fishermen  was  not  abandoned.  In 
1852  a  fresh  and  determined  series  of  hostilities  was  begun 
against  American  fishermen.  A  naval  force  was  sent  out  from 
England,  and  the  whole  coast  of  Nova  Scotia  was  guarded  by 
the  guns  of  the  Royal  Navy  —  thirteen  war-vessels  patrolling 
the  fishing-grounds.  It  was  again  proclaimed  that  the  three- 
mile  limit  of  the  treaty  of  1818  was  not  three  miles  from  the 
shore,  but  three  miles  outside  of  a  line  from  headland  to  head 
land  of  bays.  This  construction  of  the  treaty  would  place  the 
American  fishermen  in  many  places  thirty  miles  from  shore, 
instead  of  three,  as  provided  by  treaty.  Mr.  Everett  had  perti 
nently  reminded  the  British  Government  that  by  this  construc 
tion  "  the  waters  which  wash  the  entire  south-eastern  coast  of 
Nova  Scotia  from  Cape  Sable  to  Cape  Canso  —  a  distance  of 


498  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

nearly  three  hundred  miles  —  might  constitute  a  bay  from  which 
the  United  States  fishermen  would  be  excluded."  In  other 
words,  the  argument  of  Mr.  Everett  showed  that  the  British 
construction,  if  admitted,  would  destroy  all  American  rights 
intended  to  be  guarded  and  guaranteed  under  the  provisions  of 
the  treaty. 

When  the  attempt  of  1852  was  made  to  enforce  the  "  head 
land  "  construction  of  the  treaty,  Mr.  Webster  was  Secretary  of 
State,  in  the  Administration  of  Mr.  Fillmore.  In  an  official 
paper  over  his  own  signature,  Mr.  Webster  recorded  his  opinion 
that  the  British  construction  of  the  treaty  "  is  not  conformable 
to  the  intentions  of  the  contracting  parties"  Those  are  weighty 
words,  and  spoken  by  Mr.  Webster,  they  give  an  almost  author 
itative  construction  to  the  treaty.  It  is  certainly  not  discour 
teous  or  invidious  to  say  that  in  legal  ability,  especially  on 
points  both  of  Constitutional  and  International  Law,  Mr. 
Webster's  opinion  is  entitled  to  more  serious  consideration 
than  that  of  any  British  official  who  was  then  dealing  or  who 
has  since  dealt  with  the  fishery  question. 

Mr.  Webster's  official  proclamation,  from  which  I  have  quoted, 
was  issued  on  the  6th  of  July,  1852.  A  fortnight  later  he 
addressed  a  large  audience  from  the  front  door  of  his  house  at 
Marshfield,  and  then  he  spoke  with  entire  freedom.  "The 
treaty  of  1818,"  said  Mr.  Webster,  "was  made  with  the  Crown 
of  England,  If  an  American  fishing-vessel  is  captured  by  one 
of  her  vessels  of  war,  the  Crown  of  England  is  answerable ; 
but  it  is  not  to  be  expected  that  the  United  States  will  submit 
their  rights  to  be  adjudicated  in  the  petty  tribunals  of  the 
Provinces,  or  that  we  shall  allow  our  own  vessels  to  be  seized 
by  constables  and  other  petty  officers,  and  condemned  by  the 
municipal  courts  of  Quebec,  Newfoundland,  New  Brunswick  or 
Canada.  ...  In  the  mean  time  be  assured  that  the  fishing  in 
terest  will  not  be  neglected  by  this  Administration  under  any 
circumstances.  The  fishermen  shall  be  protected  in  all  their 
rights  of  property  and  in  all  their  rights  of  occupation.  To 
use  a  Marblehead  phrase,  they  shall  be  protected  '  hook  and 
line,  bob  and  sinker.' '' 

Mr.  Webster  fell  ill  very  soon  after  these  vigorous  expressions, 
and  the  negotiations  passed  into  other  hands  and  were  adjusted 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  IN   1886.  499 

finally  by  the  Reciprocity  Treaty  of  1854.  The  operation  of 
that  treaty  was  highly  injurious  to  American  fishermen.  Before 
its  termination  in  1866,  our  Government  refused  to  renew  it 
and  our  fishing  interest  immediately  began  to  revive,  and  im 
mediately  the  Canadians  began  to  agitate  for  another  treaty 
by  which  they  could  reach  the  markets  of  the  United  States. 
Their  wishes  were  gratified,  and  by  the  strangest  of  all  diplo 
matic  juggles  the  United  States  paid  five  and  a  half  millions  of 
dollars  for  a  treaty  which  it  did  not  want  arid  which  the  other 
party  earnestly  desired.  Time  has  passed  and  the  treaty  of 
1871  has  expired.  The  Canadians  again  come  back  to  their  old 
tactics  of  harassing  and  worrying  and  outraging  American 
fishermen  until  by  sheer  weariness,  after  the  manner  of  the 
unjust  judge  in  Scripture,  our  Government  shall  give  them 
what  they  want,  even  to  the  injury  of  our  own  people. 

The  humiliation  of  our  situation  has  been  gratuitously  in 
creased  by  the  vote  of  a  majority  of  the  Democratic  party  in 
the  House  of  Representatives  to  throw  open  the  markets  of  the 
United  States  to  British  and  Canadian  fishermen,  without  duty 
or  charge,  and  without  securing  to  American  fishermen  the 
right  to  fish  in  British  and  Canadian  waters.  This  is  an  act  of 
hostility  to  the  fishing  interest  of  New  England,  the  motive  of 
which  it  is  difficult  even  to  comprehend.  John  Randolph  so 
hated  the  wool  tariff  that  he  "  felt  like  walking  a  mile  to  kick  a 
sheep."  Do  Northern  Democrats  feel  so  rancorous  a  hostil 
ity  to  the  fishermen  of  New  England  that  they  would  sacrifice 
a  great  national  interest  in  order  to  inflict  a  blow  upon  them  ? 

It  would  certainly  be  refreshing  if  we  could  hear  Mr.  Web 
ster's  words  repeated  from  official  sources  to-day.  It  would  be 
refreshing  if  it  could  once  more  be  asserted  with  the  strength 
and  dignity  of  Webster  that  "  the  United  States  will  not  sub 
mit  their  rights  to  be  adjudicated  in  the  petty  tribunals  of  the 
Provinces,"  that  "  American  fishermen  shall  be  protected  in  all 
their  rights  of  property,  and  in  all  their  rights  of  occupation." 
Mr.  Webster  did  not  expect  and  did  not  intend  that  his  posi 
tion  would  lead  to  war.  He  simply  expected  that  a  firm,  de 
cided  tone  would  bring  English  officials  to  their  senses,  and 
make  them  feel  the  responsibility  and  danger  of  transgressing 
the  rights  and  touching  the  sensibilities  of  a  proud  and  power- 


500  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

ful  people.  Mr.  Webster  knew,  as  those  who  learned  from  him 
have  since  known,  that  England  could  even  less  than  the 
United  States  afford  to  go  to  war  about  the  fisheries.  Mr. 
Webster  knew,  as  those  who  have  learned  in  his  school  have 
since  known,  that  England  and  the  United  States  can  never  go 
to  war  except  on  some  point  that  touches  the  imperial  integrity 
of  the  one  or  the  other ;  and  even  an  offense  of  that  magnitude 
we  agreed  in  1871  to  settle  by  arbitration  and  not  by  gage  of 
battle.  But  the  country  is  weary  of  hearing  in  Mr.  Webster's 
phrase  that  Canadian  constables  are  arresting  American  crews, 
and  that  Canadian  gun-boats  are  capturing  vessels  on  the  high 
seas  floating  the  American  flag,  —  and  doing  all  this  on  the 
assumption  of  a  treaty  power  which  the  United  States  denies, 
and  upon  a  technical  construction  put  forward  a  quarter  of  a 
century  after  the  treaty  went  into  operation,  and  after  it  had 
received  a  peaceful  and  fair  construction.  We  await  the  publi 
cation  of  Mr.  Bayard's  correspondence  with  Great  Britain  on 
the  subject  of  the  seizure  of  American  fishing-vessels  with  deep 
interest  —  and  with  the  hope,  if  not  the  expectation,  that  he 
will  leave  his  country  in  a  better  position  at  the  close  of  the 
negotiation  than  he  has  thus  far  maintained. 

Another  international  trouble  has  increased  our  sense  of 
chagrin  and  humiliation.  In  contrast  with  our  patient  endur 
ance  of  Canadian  outrage  towards  American  fishermen,  we 
have  made  an  unnecessary  and  undignified  display  of  insolence 
and  bravado  towards  Mexico.  There  is  no  adequate  cause  for 
the  demonstration.  I  do  not  stop  at  this  point  to  narrate  the 
precise  facts  attending  the  imprisonment  of  Mr.  Cutting.  I 
know  that  we  cannot  without  loss  of  character  for  honor  and 
chivalry  begin  our  negotiations  with  threats  of  war.  I  main 
tain  that  when  the  United  States  agreed  to  accept  arbitration 
as  the  means  of  adjusting  our  grave  difficulties  with  England, 
we  came  under  bonds  to  the  public  opinion  of  the  world  to 
offer  arbitration  to  any  weaker  power  as  the  means  of  settling 
difficulties  in  all  cases  where  we  cannot  adjust  them  by  direct 
negotiation.  If  \ve  are  not  willing  to  accept  that  conclusion, 
we  place  ourselves  in  the  disreputable  attitude  of  accepting 
arbitration  with  a  strong  power,  and  resorting  to  force  with  a 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  IX  1886.  501 

weak  power.  I  am  sure  no  American  citizen  of  self-respect 
desires  to  see  his  country  subjected  to  that  degradation.  For 
the  United  States  to  attack  Mexico  without  giving  her  an 
opportunity  to  be  heard  before  an  impartial  tribunal  of  arbitra 
tion  would  be  for  a  nation  of  unlimited  power  to  put  herself 
to  open  shame  before  the  world. 

There  could  not,  fellow-citizens,  in  my  judgment,  be  a  more 
deplorable  event  than  a  war  between  the  United  States  and 
any  other  Republic  of  America.  The  United  States  must  be 
regarded  as  the  elder  sister  in  that  family  of  commonwealths. 
Even  in  the  day  of  our  weakness,  we  gave  aid  and  comfort 
to  them  in  their  struggle  for  independence ;  let  us  not  fail 
now  to  cultivate  friendly  and  intimate  relations  with  them. 
Refraining  from  war  ourselves  we  shall  gain  the  influence  that 
will  enable  us  to  prevent  war  among  them  —  so  that  peace  shall 
be  assured  and  perpetual  on  this  continent.  If  I  recall  any 
part  of  my  own  participation  in  public  affairs  with  special  satis 
faction  it  is  that  I  endeavored  to  assemble  the  American  Repub 
lics  in  a  Peace  Congress  to  the  end  that  war  between  nations 
on  this  continent  should  be  made  forever  impossible.  War  in 
any  direction  would  be  caiamity  to  the  United  States  —  but  war 
forced  on  Mexico  would  be  a  crime. 

The  pending  contest  is  marked  by  the  presence  of  a  third 
party,  organized  as  its  leaders  say,  to  enforce  the  prohibition  of 
the  liquor  traffic  in  Maine.  Some  singular  features  charac 
terize  this  movement.  The  Republican  party  in  Maine  from 
the  day  of  its  organization  has  been  pledged  to  prohibition  — 
enacting  in  1857-58  the  principal  statute  now  in  force,  and 
amending  it  from  year  to  year  as  leading  temperance  men 
requested.  The  amendments  have  averaged  nearly  one  for 
every  year  since  the  original  law  was  passed. 

The  third  party,  in  their  convention,  testify  that  prohibition 
has  been  so  well  enforced  by  the  Republicans,  that  in  their 
judgment  Maine  is  a  quarter  of  a  century  ahead  of  the  license 
States  in  all  that  pertains  to  the  temperance  reform.  The 
Republicans  have  this  year  with  special  emphasis  in  their  State 
Convention  re-affirmed  their  faith  in  prohibition  and  nomi 
nated  for  Governor  a  pronounced  supporter  of  the  law.  But 


502  POLITICAL  DISCUSSIONS. 

all  this  does  not  suit  the  Third  Party  Prohibitionists.  They 
desire  a  party  of  their  own  just  small  enough  to  have  no  effect 
at  all,  or,  if  possible,  just  large  enough  to  throw  the  State  into 
the  hands  of  the  Democratic  party,  which  has  been  as  constant 
in  its  hostility  to  prohibition  as  the  Republican  party  of  Maine 
has  been  constant  in  its  fidelity  to  prohibition. 

The  position  and  platform  of  the  third  party  might  in  fact  be 
thus  abbreviated :  Whereas  the  Republican  party  of  Maine  en 
acted  a  prohibitory  law  thirty  years  ago  and  has  since  amended 
it  as  a  majority  of  the  friends  of  temperance  demanded,  and  has 
in  consequence  advanced  Maine  in  all  matters  of  temperance  a 
quarter  of  a  century  ahead  of  the  license  States ;  therefore,  be 
it  resolved  that  we,  members  of  a  third  party  of  Prohibitionists, 
will  so  vote  as  to  defeat  the  Republican  party  and  turn  the 
Government  of  Maine  over  to  the  Democrats,  who  have  opposed 
prohibition  by  every  instrumentality  in  their  power. 

Democrats  of  course,  with  scarcely  an  attempt  at  conceal 
ment,  regard  the  third  party  as  their  especial  ally,  and  the  coali 
tion  is  so  evident  that  I  am  sure  no  man  can  be  deceived  in 
regard  to  the  result  except  him  who  desires  to  be  deceived. 
Every  voter  knows  that  he  must  choose  between  the  Republi 
can  and  Democratic  parties  —  and  every  voter  knows  that  in 
joining  the  third  party  he  indirectly  but  effectually  throws  his 
political  and  moral  influence  in  favor  of  the  Democracy. 

The  supporters  of  the  third  party  adopt  as  their  shibboleth 
that  "the  Republican  party  must  be  killed,"  and  they  have 
secured  the  co-operation  of  the  Democrat,  of  the  Free-Trader,  of 
the  saloon  proprietor,  of  all  men  who  wish  to  keep  six  millions 
of  colored  people  in  the  South  disfranchised  and  oppressed.  It 
is  an  insincere  coalition,  an  unhallowed  partnership,  an  unholy 
alliance.  Against  it  the  Republican  party  of  Maine  presents  its 
uniform  support  of  prohibition,  its  unbroken  record  of  devotion 
to  the  protection  of  American  labor,  its  steadfast  effort  in  be 
half  of  those  who  are  down-trodden  and  deprived  of  natural 
rights.  The  Republican  party  has  always  fought  its  battles 
single-handed,  against  great  odds,  and  now  with  principle  un 
tarnished  and  courage  undaunted  it  will  again  triumph  over 
the  combined  force  of  all  its  foes. 


MEMORIAL  ADDRESS.  505 

war  in  which  for  three  centuries  patriots  of  English  blood  had 
struck  sturdy  blows  for  constitutional  government  and  human 
liberty,  his  family  had  been  represented.  They  were  at  Marston 
Moor,  at  Naseby,  and  at  Preston ;  they  were  at  Bunker  Hill,  at 
Saratoga,  and  at  Monmouth  ;  and  in  his  own  person  had  battled 
for  the  same  great  cause  in  the  war  which  preserved  the  Union 
of  the  States. 

His  father  dying  before  he  was  two  years  old,  Garfield's 
early  life  was  one  of  privation,  but  its  poverty  has  been  made 
indelicately  and  unjustly  prominent.  Thousands  of  readers 
have  imagined  him  as  the  ragged,  starving  child,  whose  reality 
too  often  greets  the  eye  in  the  squalid  sections  of  our  large 
cities.  General  Garfield's  infancy  and  youth  had  none  of  this 
destitution,  none  of  these  pitiful  features  appealing  to  the 
tender  heart,  and  to  the  open  hand  of  charity.  He  was  a  poor 
boy  in  the  same  sense  in  which  Henry  Clay  was  a  poor  boy ; 
in  which  Andrew  Jackson  was  a  poor  boy ;  in  which  Daniel 
Webster  was  a  poor  boy  ;  in  the  sense  in  which  a  large  majority 
of  the  eminent  men  of  America  in  all  generations  have  been 
poor  boys.  Before  a  great  multitude,  in  a  public  speech,  Mr. 
Webster  bore  this  testimony:  — 

"  It  did  not  happen  to  me  to  be  born  in  a  log  cabin,  but  my  elder  brothers 
and  sisters  were  born  in  a  log  cabin  raised  amid  the  snow-drifts  of  Xew 
Hampshire,  at  a  period  so  early  that  when  the  smoke  rose  first  from  its  rude 
chimney  and  curled  over  the  frozen  hills,  there  was  no  similar  evidence  of  a 
white  man's  habitation  between  it  and  the  settlements  on  the  rivers  of 
Canada.  Its  remains  still  exist.  I  make  to  it  an  annual  visit.  I  carry  my 
children  to  it  to  teach  them  the  hardships  endured  by  the  generations  which 
have  gone  before  them.  I  love  to  dwell  on  the  tender  recollections,  the 
kindred  ties,  the  early  affections,  and  the  touching  narratives  and  incidents 
which  mingle  with  all  I  know  of  this  primitive  family  abode." 

With  the  requisite  change  of  scene  the  same  words  would 
aptly  portray  the  early  days  of  Garfield.  The  poverty  of  the 
frontier,  where  all  are  engaged  in  a  common  struggle  and  where 
a  common  sympathy  and  hearty  co-operation  lighten  the  bur 
dens  of  each,  is  a  very  different  poverty,  different  in  kind,  dif 
ferent  in  influence  and  effect,  from  that  conscious  and  humiliat 
ing  indigence  which  is  every  day  forced  to  contrast  itself  with 
neighboring  wealth  on  which  it  feels  a  sense  of  grinding  depend- 


506  JAMES  A.  GARFIELD. 

ence.  The  poverty  of  the  frontier  is  indeed  no  poverty.  It 
is  but  the  beginning  of  wealth,  and  the  boundless  possibilities 
of  the  future  are  always  opening  before  it.  No  man  ever  grew 
up  in  the  agricultural  regions  of  the  West,  where  a  house-rais 
ing,  or  even  a  corn-husking,  is  matter  of  common  interest  and 
helpfulness,  with  any  other  feeling  than  that  of  broad-minded, 
generous  independence.  This  honorable  independence  marked 
the  youth  of  Garfield,  as  it  marks  the  youth  of  millions  of  the 
best  blood  and  brain  now  training  for  the  future  citizenship 
and  future  government  of  the  Republic.  He  was  born  heir  to 
land,  to  the  title  of  freeholder,  which  has  been  the  patent  and 
passport  of  self-respect  with  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  ever  since 
Hengist  and  Horsa  landed  on  the  shores  of  England.  His  ad 
venture  on  the  canal  —  an  alternative  between  that  and  the 
deck  of  a  Lake  Erie  schooner  —  was  a  farmer  boy's  device  for 
earning  money,  just  as  the  New  England  lad  begins  a  possibly 
great  career  by  sailing  before  the  mast  on  a  coasting  vessel,  or 
on  a  merchantman  bound  to  the  farther  India  or  to  the  China 
seas. 

No  manly  man  feels  any  thing  of  shame  in  looking  back  to 
early  struggles  with  adverse  circumstances,  and  no  man  feels  a 
worthier  pride  than  when  he  has  conquered  the  obstacles  to  his 
progress.  But  no  one  of  noble  mould  desires  to  be  looked  upon 
as  having  occupied  a  menial  position,  as  having  been  repressed 
by  a  feeling  of  inferiority,  or  as  having  suffered  the  evils  of 
poverty  until  relief  was  found  at  the  hand  of  charity.  Gen 
eral  Garfield's  youth  presented  no  hardships  which  family  love 
and  family  energy  did  not  overcome,  subjected  him  to  no  priva 
tions  which  he  did  not  cheerfully  accept,  and  left  no  memories 
save  those  which  were  recalled  with  delight,  and  transmitted 
with  profit  and  with  pride. 

His  early  opportunities  for  securing  an  education  were  ex 
tremely  limited,  and  yet  were  sufficient  to  develop  in  him  an 
intense  desire  to  learn.  He  could  read  at  three  years  of  age, 
and  each  winter  he  had  the  advantage  of  the  district  school. 
He  read  all  the  books  to  be  found  within  the  circle  of  his  ac 
quaintance  ;  some  of  them  he  learned  by  heart.  While  yet  in 
childhood  he  was  a  constant  student  of  the  Bible,  and  became 
familiar  with  its  literature.  The  dignity  and  earnestness  of 


MEMORIAL  ADDRESS.  507 

his  speech  in  mature  life  gave  evidence  of  this  early  training. 
At  eighteen  years  of  age  he  was  able  to  teach  school,  and 
thenceforward  his  ambition  was  to  obtain  a  college  education. 
To  this  end  he  bent  all  his  efforts,  working  in  the  harvest  field, 
at  the  carpenter's  bench,  and,  in  the  winter  season,  teaching  the 
common  schools  of  the  neighborhood.  While  thus  laboriously 
occupied  he  found  time  to  prosecute  his  studies,  and  was  so 
successful  that  at  twenty-two  years  of  age  he  was  able  to  enter 
the  junior  class  at  Williams  College,  then  under  the  Presidency 
of  the  venerable  and  honored  Mark  Hopkins,  who,  in  the  full 
ness  of  his  powers,  survives  the  eminent  pupil  to  whom  he  was 
of  inestimable  service. 

The  history  of  Garfield's  life  to  this  period  presents  no  novel 
features.  He  had  undoubtedly  shown  perseverance,  self-reli 
ance,  self-sacrifice  and  ambition  —  qualities  which,  be  it  said  for 
the  honor  of  our  country,  are  everywhere  to  be  found  among  the 
young  men  of  America.  But  from  his  graduation  at  Williams 
onward,  to  the  hour  of  his  tragical  death,  his  career  was  emi 
nent  and  exceptional.  Slowly  working  through  his  educational 
period,  receiving  his  diploma  when  twenty-four  years  of  age,  he 
seemed  at  one  bound  to  spring  into  conspicuous  and  brilliant 
success.  Within  six  years  he  was  successively  President  of  a 
College,  State  Senator  of  Ohio,  Major-General  of  the  Army  of 
the  United  States,  and  Representative-elect  to  the  National  Con 
gress.  A  combination  of  honors  so  varied,  so  elevated,  within 
a  period  so  brief  and  to  a  man  so  young,  is  without  parallel  in 
the  history  of  the  country. 

His  army  life  was  begun  with  no  other  military  knowledge 
than  such  as  he  had  hastily  gained  from  books  in  the  few 
months  preceding  his  march  to  the  field.  Stepping  from  civil 
life  to  the  head  of  a  regiment,  the  first  order  he  received  when 
ready  to  cross  the  Ohio  was  to  assume  command  of  a  brigade, 
and  to  operate  as  an  independent  force  in  Eastern  Kentucky. 
His  immediate  duty  was  to  check  the  advance  of  Humphrey 
Marshall,  who  was  marching  down  the  Big  Sandy  with  the 
intention  of  occupying,  in  connection  with  other  Confederate 
forces,  the  entire  territory  of  Kentucky,  and  of  precipitating 
the  State  into  secession.  This  was  at  the  close  of  the  year  1861. 
Seldom,  if  ever,  has  a  young  college  professor  been  thrown  into 


508  JAMES  A.  GARFIELD. 

a  more  embarrassing  and  discouraging  position.  He  knew  just 
enough  of  military  science,  as  he  expressed  it  himself,  to  meas 
ure  the  extent  of  his  ignorance,  and  with  a  handful  of  men  he 
was  marching,  in  rough  winter  weather,  into  a  strange  country, 
among  a  hostile  population,  to  confront  a  largely  superior  force 
under  the  command  of  a  distinguished  graduate  of  West  Point, 
who  had  seen  active  and  important  service  in  two  preceding 
wars. 

The  result  of  the  campaign  is  matter  of  history.  The  skill, 
the  endurance,  the  extraordinary  energy  shown  by  Garfield,  the 
courage  he  imparted  to  his  men,  raw  and  untried  as  himself, 
the  measures  he  adopted  to  increase  his  force  and  to  create  in 
the  enemy's  mind  exaggerated  estimates  of  his  numbers,  bore 
perfect  fruit  in  the  rout  of  Marshall,  the  capture  of  his  camp, 
the  dispersion  of  his  force,  and  the  emancipation  of  an  im 
portant  territory  from  the  control  of  the  rebellion.  Coming 
at  the  close  of  a  long  series  of  disasters  to  the  Union  arms, 
this  victory  had  an  unusual  and  extraneous  importance,  and 
in  the  popular  judgment  elevated  the  young  commander  to  the 
rank  of  a  military  hero.  With  less  than  two  thousand  men 
in  his  entire  command,  with  a  mobilized  force  of  only  eleven 
hundred,  without  cannon,  he  had  met  an  army  of  five  thousand 
and  defeated  them  —  driving  Marshall's  forces  successively  from 
two  strongholds  of  their  own  selection,  fortified  with  abundant 
artillery.  Major-General  Buell,  commanding  the  Department 
of  the  Ohio,  an  experienced  and  able  soldier  of  the  regular 
army,  published  an  order  of  thanks  and  congratulation  on  the 
brilliant  result  of  the  Big  Sandy  campaign,  which  would  have 
turned  the  head  of  a  less  cool  and  sensible  man  than  Garfield. 
Buell  declared  that  his  services  had  called  into  action  the  high 
est  qualities  of  a  soldier,  and  President  Lincoln  supplemented 
these  words  of  praise  by  the  more  substantial  reward  of  a 
Brigadier-General's  commission,  to  bear  date  from  the  day  of 
his  decisive  victory  over  Marshall. 

The  subsequent  military  career  of  Garfield  fully  sustained  its 
brilliant  beginning.  With  his  new  commission  he  was  assigned 
to  the  command  of  a  brigade  in  the  Army  of  the  Ohio,  and 
took  part  in  the  second  and  decisive  day's  fight  on  the  bloody 
field  of  Shiloh.  The  remainder  of  the  year  1862  was  not 


MEMORIAL  ADDRESS.  509 

especially  eventful  to  him,  as  it  was  not  to  the  armies  with 
which  he  was  serving.  His  practical  sense  was  called  into 
exercise  in  completing  the  task,  assigned  him  by  General  Buell, 
of  reconstructing  bridges  and  re-establishing  lines  of  railway 
communication  for  the  Army.  His  occupation  in  this  useful 
but  not  brilliant  field  was  varied  by  service  on  courts-martial  of 
importance,  in  which  department  of  duty  he  won  a  valuable 
reputation,  attracting  the  notice  and  securing  the  approval  of 
the  able  and  eminent  Judge  Advocate  General  of  the  Army. 
This  of  itself  was  warrant  to  honorable  fame  ;  for  among  the 
great  men  who  in  those  trying  days  gave  themselves,  with  entire 
devotion,  to  the  service  of  their  country,  one  who  brought  to 
that  service  the  ripest  learning,  the  most  fervid  eloquence,  the 
most  varied  attainments,  who  labored  with  modesty  and  shunned 
applause,  who  in  the  day  of  triumph  sat  reserved  and  silent  and 
grateful  —  as  Francis  Deak  in  the  hour  of  Hungary's  deliver 
ance —  was  Joseph  Holt  of  Kentucky,  who  in  his  honorable 
retirement  enjoys  the  respect  and  veneration  of  all  who  love 
the  Union  of  the  States. 

Early  in  1863  Garfield  was  assigned  to  the  highly  important 
and  responsible  post  of  Chief  of  Staff  to  General  Rosecrans, 
then  at  the  head  of  the  Army  of  the  Cumberland.  Perhaps  in 
a  great  military  campaign  no  subordinate  officer  requires 
sounder  judgment  and  quicker  knowledge  of  men  than  the 
Chief  of  Staff  to  the  Commanding  General.  An  indiscreet  man 
in  such  a  position  can  sow  more  discord,  breed  more  jealousy 
and  disseminate  more  strife  than  any  other  officer  in  the  entire 
organization.  When  General  Garfield  assumed  his  new  duties 
he  found  various  troubles  already  well  developed  and  seriously 
affecting  the  value  and  efficiency  of  the  Army  of  the  Cumber 
land.  The  energy,  the  impartiality,  and  the  tact  with  which 
he  sought  to  allay  these  dissensions,  and  to  discharge  the  duties 
of  his  new  and  trying  position,  will  always  remain  one  of  the 
most  striking  proofs  of  his  great  versatility.  His  military 
duties  closed  on  the  memorable  field  of  Chickamauga,  a  field 
which,  however  disastrous  to  the  Union  arms,  gave  to  him  the 
occasion  of  winning  imperishable  laurels.  The  very  rare  dis 
tinction  was  accorded  him  of  a  great  promotion  for  bravery  on 
a  field  that  was  lost.  President  Lincoln  appointed  him  a  Major- 


510  JAMES  A.  GARFIELD. 

General  in  the  Army  of  the  United  States  for  gallant  and  meri 
torious  conduct  in  the  battle  of  Chickamauga. 

The  Army  of  the  Cumberland  was  re-organized  under  the 
command  of  General  Thomas,  who  promptly  offered  Garfield 
one  of  its  divisions.  He  was  extremely  desirous  to  accept  the 
position,  but  was  embarrassed  by  the  fact  that  he  had,  a  year 
before,  been  elected  to  Congress,  and  the  time  when  he  must 
take  his  seat  was  drawing  near.  He  preferred  to  remain  in 
the  military  service,  and  had  within  his  own  breast  the  largest 
confidence  of  success  in  the  wider  field  which  his  new  rank 
opened  to  him.  Balancing  the  arguments  on  the  one  side  and 
the  other,  anxious  to  determine  what  was  for  the  best,  desirous 
above  all  things  to  do  his  patriotic  duty,  he  was  decisively 
influenced  by  the  advice  of  President  Lincoln  and  Secretary 
Stan  ton,  both  of  whom  assured  him  that  he  could,  at  that  time, 
be  of  especial  value  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  He  re 
signed  his  commission  of  Major-General  on  the  fifth  clay  of 
December,  1863,  and  took  his  seat  in  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  on  the  seventh.  He  had  served  two  years  and  four  months 
in  the  Army,  and  had  just  completed  his  thirty-second  year. 

The  Thirty-eighth  Congress  is  pre-eminently  entitled  in  his 
tory  to  the  designation  of  the  War  Congress.  It  was  elected 
while  the  war  was  flagrant,  and  every  member  was  chosen  upon 
the  issues  involved  in  the  continuance  of  the  struggle.  The 
Thirty-seventh  Congress  had,  indeed,  legislated  to  a  large  ex 
tent  on  war  measures,  but  it  was  chosen  before  any  one  believed 
that  secession  of  the  States  would  be  actually  attempted.  The 
magnitude  of  the  work  which  fell  upon  its  successor  was  un 
precedented,  both  in  respect  to  the  vast  sums  of  money  raised 
for  the  support  of  the  Army  and  Navy,  and  of  the  new  and 
extraordinary  powers  of  legislation  which  it  was  forced  to  ex 
ercise.  Only  twenty-four  States  were  represented,  and  one 
hundred  and  eighty-two  members  were  upon  its  roll.  Among 
these  were  many  distinguished  party-leaders  on  both  sides, 
veterans  in  the  public  service,  with  established  reputations  for 
ability,  and  with  that  skill  which  comes  only  from  parliamen 
tary  experience.  Into  this  assemblage  of  men  Garfield  en 
tered  without  special  preparation,  and,  it  might  almost  be  said, 
unexpectedly.  The  question  of  taking  command  of  a  division 


MEMORIAL  ADDRESS.  511 

of  troops  under  General  Thomas,  or  taking  his  seat  in  Congress, 
was  kept  open  till  the  last  moment,  so  late,  indeed,  that  the 
resignation  of  his  military  commission  and  his  appearance  in 
the  House  were  almost  contemporaneous.  He  wore  the  uni 
form  of  a  Major-General  of  the  United  States  Army  on  Satur 
day,  and  on  Monday,  in  civilian's  dress,  he  answered  to  the 
roll-call  as  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  Ohio. 

He  was  especially  fortunate  in  the  constituency  which  elected 
him.  Descended  almost  entirely  from  New  England  stock, 
the  men  of  the  Ashtabula  district  were  intensely  radical  on  all 
questions  relating  to  human  rights.  Well  educated,  thrifty, 
thoroughly  intelligent  in  affairs,  acutely  discerning  of  character, 
not  quick  to  bestow  confidence,  and  slow  to  withdraw  it,  they 
were  at  once  the  most  helpful  and  most  exacting  of  supporters. 
Their  tenacious  trust  in  men  in  whom  they  have  once  confided 
is  illustrated  by  the  unparalleled  fact  that'Elisha  Whittlesey, 
Joshua  R.  Giddings,  and  James  A.  Garfield  represented  the 
district  for  fifty-four  years. 

There  is  no  test  of  a  man's  ability  in  any  department  of 
public  life  more  severe  than  service  in  the  House  of  Represen 
tatives  ;  there  is  no  place  where  so  little  deference  is  paid  to 
reputation  previously  acquired,  or  to  eminence  won  outside  ; 
no  place  where  so  little  consideration  is  shown  for  the  feelings 
or  the  failures  of  beginners.  What  a  man  gains  in  the  House 
he  gains  by  sheer  force  of  his  own  character,  and  if  he  loses 
and  falls  back  he  must  expect  no  mercy,  and  will  receive  no 
sympathy.  It  is  a  field  in  which  the  survival  of  the  strongest 
is  the  recognized  rule,  and  where  no  pretense  can  deceive  and 
no  glamour  can  mislead.  The  real  man  is  discovered,  his  worth 
is  impartially  weighed,  his  rank  is  irreversibly  decreed. 

With  possibly  a  single  exception,  Garfield  was  the  youngest 
member  in  the  House  when  he  entered,  and  was  but  seven 
years  from  his  college  graduation.  But  he  had  not  been  in  his 
seat  sixty  days  before  his  ability  was  recognized  and  his  place 
conceded.  He  stepped  to  the  front  with  the  confidence  of  one 
who  belonged  there.  The  House  contained  an  unusual  number 
of  strong  men  of  both  parties ;  nineteen  of  them  have  since 
been  transferred  to  the  Senate  ;  many  of  them  have  served  with 
distinction  in  the  gubernatorial  chairs  of  their  respective  States, 


512  JAMES  A.  GARFIELD. 

and  on  foreign  missions  of  great  consequence.  But  among 
them  all  none  grew  so  rapidly,  none  so  firmly,  as  Garfield.  As 
is  said  by  Trevelyan  of  his  Parliamentary  hero,  Garfield  suc 
ceeded  "  because  all  the  world  in  concert  could  not  have  kept 
him  in  the  background,  and  because  when  once  in  the  front  he 
played  his  part  with  a  prompt  intrepidity  and  a  commanding 
ease  that  were  but  the  outward  symptoms  of  the  immense 
reserves  of  energy  on  which  it  was  in  his  power  to  draw." 
Indeed,  the  apparently  reserved  force  which  he  possessed  was 
one  of  his  great  characteristics.  He  never  did  so  well  but  that 
it  seemed  he  could  easily  have  done  better.  He  never  ex 
pended  so  much  strength  but  that  he  appeared  to  be  holding 
additional  power  at  command.  This  is  one  of  the  happiest 
and  rarest  distinctions  of  an  effective  debater,  and  often  counts 
for  as  much,  in  persuading  an  assembly,  as  the  eloquent  and 
elaborate  argument. 

The  great  measure  of  Garfield's  fame  was  filled  by  his  ser 
vice  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  His  military  life,  illus 
trated  by  honorable  performance,  and  rich  in  promise,  was,  as 
he  himself  felt,  prematurely  terminated,  and  necessarily  incom 
plete.  Speculation  as  to  what  he  might  have  done  in  a  field 
where  the  great  prizes  are  so  few,  cannot  be  profitable.  It  is 
sufficient  to  say  that  as  a  soldier  he  did  his  duty  bravely  ;  he 
did  it  intelligently ;  he  won  an  enviable  fame,  and  he  retired 
from  the  service  without  blot  or  breath  against  him.  As  a 
lawyer,  though  admirably  equipped  for  the  profession,  he  can 
scarcely  be  said  to  have  entered  on  its  practice.  The  few  efforts 
he  made  at  the  bar  were  distinguished  by  the  same  high  order 
of  ability  which  he  exhibited  on  every  field  where  he  was  put 
to  the  test;  and,  if  a  man  may  be  accepted  as  a  competent 
judge  of  his  own  capacities  and  adaptations,  the  law  was  the 
profession  to  which  Garfield  should  have  devoted  himself. 
But  fate  ordained  otherwise,  and  his  reputation  in  history  will 
rest  largely  upon  his  service  in  the  House  of  Representatives. 
That  service  was  exceptionally  long.  He  was  nine  times  con 
secutively  chosen  to  the  House,  an  honor  enjoyed  probably  by 
not  twenty  other  Representatives  of  the  more  than  five  thou 
sand  who  have  been  elected  from  the  organization  of  the 
Government  to  this  hour. 


MEMORIAL  ADDRESS.  513 

As  a  parliamentary  orator,  as  a  debater  on  an  issue  squarely 
joined,  where  the  position  had  been  chosen  and  the  ground  laid 
out,  Garfield  must  be  assigned  a  very  high  rank.  More,  per 
haps,  than  any  man  with  whom  he  was  associated  in  public  life, 
he  gave  careful  and  systematic  study  to  public  questions,  and 
he  came  to  every  discussion  in  which  he  took  part,  with  elabo 
rate  and  complete  preparation.  He  was  a  steady  and  indefati 
gable  worker.  Those  who  imagine  that  talent  or  genius  can 
supply  the  place  or  achieve  the  results  of  labor  will  find  no 
encouragement  in  Garfield's  life.  In  preliminary  work  he 
was  apt,  rapid,  and  skillful.  He  possessed  in  a  high  degree  the 
power  of  readily  absorbing  ideas  and  facts,  and,  like  Dr.  John 
son,  had  the  art  of  getting  from  a  book  all  that  was  of  value 
in  it  by  a  reading  apparently  so  quick  and  cursory  that  it 
seemed  like  a  mere  glance  at  the  table  of  contents.  He  was  a 
pre-eminently  fair  and  candid  man  in  debate,  took  no  petty 
advantage,  stooped  to  no  unworthy  methods,  avoided  personal 
allusions,  rarely  appealed  to  prejudice,  did  not  seek  to  inflame 
passion.  He  had  a  quicker  eye  for  the  strong  point  of  his 
adversary  than  for  his  weak  point,  and  on  his  own  side  he  so 
marshaled  his  weighty  arguments  as  to  make  his  hearers  forget 
any  possible  lack  in  the  complete  strength  of  his  position.  He 
had  a  habit  of  stating  his  opponent's  side  with  such  amplitude 
of  fairness  and  such  liberality  of  concession  that  his  followers 
often  complained  that  he  was  giving  his  case  away.  But  never 
in  his  prolonged  participation  in  the  proceedings  of  the  House 
did  he  give  his  case  away,  or  fail  in  the  judgment  of  competent 
and  impartial  listeners  to  gain  the  mastery. 

These  characteristics,  which  marked  Garfield  as  a  great  de 
bater,  did  not,  however,  make  him  a  great  parliamentary  leader. 
A  parliamentary  leader,  as  that  term  is  understood  wherever 
free  representative  government  exists,  is  necessarily  and  very 
strictly  the  organ  of  his  party.  An  ardent  American  defined 
the  instinctive  warmth  of  patriotism  when  he  offered  the  toast, 
"  Our  country,  always  right ;  but  right  or  wrong,  our  country." 
The  parliamentary  leader  who  has  a  body  of  followers  that  will 
do  and  dare  and  die  for  the  cause,  is  one  who  believes  his  party 
always  right,  but  right  or  wrong,  is  for  his  party.  No  more* 
important  or  exacting  duty  devolves  upon  him  than  the  selea- 


514  JAMES  A.  GARFIELD. 

tion  of  the  field  and  the  time  for  contest.  He  must  know  not 
merely  how  to  strike,  but  where  to  strike  and  when  to  strike. 
He  often  skillfully  avoids  the  strength  of  his  opponent's  posi 
tion  and  scatters  confusion  in  his  ranks  by  attacking  an  exposed 
point  when  really  the  righteousness  of  the  cause  and  the 
strength  of  logical  intrenchment  are  against  him.  He  con 
quers  often  both  against  the  right  and  the  heavy  battalions ; 
as  when  young  Charles  Fox,  in  the  days  of  his  Toryism,  carried 
the  House  of  Commons  against  justice,  against  its  immemorial 
rights,  against  his  own  convictions,  if,  indeed,  at  that  period 
Fox  had  convictions,  and,  in  the  interest  of  a  corrupt  adminis 
tration,  in  obedience  to  a  tyrannical  sovereign,  drove  Wilkes 
from  the  seat  to  which  the  electors  of  Middlesex  had  chosen 
him,  and  installed  Luttrell,  in  defiance  riot  merely  of  law  but 
of  public  decency.  For  an  achievement  of  that  kind  Gar- 
field  was  disqualified  —  disqualified  by  the  texture  of  his 
mind,  by  the  honesty  of  his  heart,  by  his  conscience,  arid  by 
every  instinct  and  aspiration  of  his  nature. 

The  three  most  distinguished  parliamentary  leaders  hitherto 
developed  in  this  country  are  Mr.  Clay,  Mr.  Douglas,  and  Mr. 
Thaddeus  Stevens.  They  were  all  men  of  consummate  ability, 
of  great  earnestness,  of  intense  personality,  differing  widely 
each  from  the  others,  and  yet  with  a  signal  trait  in  common  — 
the  power  to  command.  In  the  give-and-take  of  daily  discus 
sion,  in  the  art  of  controlling  and  consolidating  reluctant  and 
refractory  followers,  in  the  skill  to  overcome  all  forms  of  oppo 
sition,  and  to  meet  with  competency  and  courage  the  varying 
phases  of  unlooked-for  assault  or  unsuspected  defection,  it 
would  be  difficult  to  rank  with  these  a  fourth  name  in  all  our 
Congressional  history.  But  of  these  Mr.  Clay  was  the  greatest. 
It  would,  perhaps,  be  impossible  to  find  in  the  parliamentary 
annals  of  the  world  a  parallel  to  Mr.  Clay,  in  1841,  when  at 
'sixty-four  years  of  age  he  took  the  control  of  the  Whig  party 
from  the  President  who  had  received  their  suffrages,  against  the 
power  of  Webster  in  the  Cabinet,  against  the  eloquence  of 
Choate  in  the  Senate,  against  the  herculean  efforts  of  Caleb 
Gushing  and  Henry  A.  Wise  in  the  House.  In  unshared  leader 
ship,  in  the  pride  and  plenitude  of  power,  he  hurled  against 
John  Tyler  with  deepest  scorn  the  mass  of  that  conquering 


MEMORIAL  ADDRESS.  515 

column  which  had  swept  over  the  land  in  1840,  and  drove  his 
administration  to  seek  shelter  behind  the  lines  of  its  political 
foes.  Mr.  Douglas  achieved  a  victory  scarcely  less  notable 
when,  in  1854,  against  the  secret  desires  of  a  strong  administra 
tion,  against  the  wise  counsel  of  the  older  chiefs,  against  the 
conservative  instincts  and  even  the  moral  sense  of  the  country, 
he  forced  a  reluctant  Congress  to  repeal  the  Missouri  Com 
promise.  Mr.  Thaddeus  Stevens  in  his  contests  from  1865 
to  1868  actually  advanced  his  parliamentary  leadership  until 
Congress  tied  the  hands  of  the  President  and  governed  the 
country  by  its  own  will,  leaving  only  perfunctory  duties  to  be 
discharged  by  the  Executive.  With  two  hundred  millions  of 
patronage  in  his  hands  at  the  •  opening  of  the  contest,  aided  by 
the  active  force  o£  Seward  in  the  Cabinet  and  the  moral  power 
of  Chase  on  the  bench,  Andrew  Johnson  could  not  command 
the  support  of  one-third  in  either  House  against  the  parliamen 
tary  uprising  of  which  Thaddeus  Stevens  was  the  animating 
spirit  and  the  unquestioned  leader. 

From  these  three  great  men  Garfield  differed  radically,  dif 
fered  in  the  quality  of  his  mind,  in  temperament,  in  the  form 
and  phase  of  ambition.  He  could  not  do  what  they  did,  but  he 
could  do  what  they  could  not,  and  in  the  breadth  of  his  Con 
gressional  work  he  left  that  which  will  longer  exert  a  potential 
influence  among  men,  and  which,  measured  by  the  severe  test 
of  posthumous  criticism,  will  secure  a  more  enduring  and  more 
enviable  fame. 

Those  unfamiliar  with  Garfield's  industry,  and  ignorant  of 
the  details  of  his  work,  may,  in  some  degree,  measure  them  by 
the  annals  of  Congress.  No  one  of  the  generation  of  public 
men  to  which  he  belonged  has  contributed  so  much  that  will 
prove  valuable  for  future  reference.  His  speeches  are  numerous, 
many  of  them  brilliant,  all  of  them  well  studied,  carefully 
phrased,  and  exhaustive  of  the  subject  under  consideration. 
Collected  from  the  scattered  pages  of  ninety  royal  octavo  vol 
umes  of  Congressional  record,  they  would  present  an  invaluable 
compendium  of  the  political  events  of  the  most  important  era 
through  which  the  National  Government  has  ever  passed. 
When  the  history  of  this  period  shall  be  impartially  written, 
when  war  legislation,  measures  of  reconstruction,  protection  of 


516  JAMES  A.  GARFIELD. 

human  rights,  amendments  to  the  Constitution,  maintenance  of 
public  credit,  steps  toward  specie  resumption,  true  theories 
of  revenue,  may  all  be  reviewed,  un surrounded  by  prejudice 
and  disconnected  from  partisanship,  the  speeches  of  Garfield  will 
be  estimated  at  their  true  value,  and  will  be  found  to  comprise  a 
vast  magazine  of  fact  and  argument,  of  clear  analysis  and  sound 
conclusion.  Indeed,  if  no  other  authority  were  accessible,  his 
speeches  in  the  House  of  Representatives  from  December,  1863, 
to  June,  1880,  would  give  a  well-connected  history  and  complete 
defense  of  the  important  legislation  of  the  seventeen  eventful 
years  that  constitute  his  parliamentary  life.  Far  beyond  that, 
his  speeches  would  be  found  to  forecast  many  great  measures 
yet  to  be  completed  —  measures  which  he  knew  were  beyond 
the  public  opinion  of  the  hour,  but  which  he  confidently  be 
lieved  would  secure  popular  approval  within  the  period  of  his 
own  lifetime  and  by  the  aid  of  his  own  efforts. 

Differing,  as  Garfield  does,  from  the  brilliant  parliamentary 
leaders,  it  is  not  easy  to  find  his  counterpart  anywhere  in  the 
record  of  American  public  life.  He,  perhaps,  more  nearly  re 
sembles  Mr.  Seward  in  his  supreme  faith  in  the  all-conquering 
power  of  a  principle.  He  had  the  love  of  learning,  and  the 
patient  industry  of  investigation,  to  which  John  Quincy  Adams 
owes  his  prominence  and  his  Presidency.  He  had  some  of  those 
ponderous  elements  of  mind  which  distinguished  Mr.  Webster, 
and  which,  indeed,  in  all  our  public  life  have  left  the  great 
Massachusetts  Senator  without  an  intellectual  peer. 

In  English  parliamentary  histor}^,  as  in  our  own,  the  leaders 
in  the  House  of  Commons  present  points  of  essential  difference 
from  Garfield.  But  some  of  his  methods  recall  the  best  fea 
tures  in  the  strong,  independent  course  of  Sir  Robert  Peel,  to 
whom  he  had  striking  resemblances  in  the  type  of  his  mind 
and  in  the  habit  of  his  speech.  He  had  all  of  Burke's  love  for 
the  Sublime  and  the  Beautiful,  with,  possibly,  something  of  his 
superabundance.  In  his  faith  and  his  magnanimity,  in  his  power 
of  statement,  in  his  subtle  analysis,  in  his  faultless  logic,  in  his 
love  of  literature,  in  his  wealth  and  world  of  illustration,  one  is 
reminded  of  that  great  English  statesman  of  to-day,  who,  con 
fronted  with  obstacles  that  would  daunt  any  but  the  dauntless, 
reviled  as  bitterly  by  those  whom  he  would  relieve  as  by  those 


MEMORIAL  ADDRESS.  517 

whose  supposed  rights  he  is  forced  to  invade,  still  labors  with 
serene  courage  for  the  amelioration  of  Ireland  and  for  the  honor 
of  the  English  name. 

Garfield's  nomination  to  the  Presidency,  while  not  antici 
pated,  was  not  a  surprise  to  the  country.  His  prominence  in 
Congress,  his  solid  qualities,  his  wide  reputation,  strengthened 
by  his  then  recent  election  as  Senator,  kept  him  before  the 
public  as  a  man  occupying  the  highest  rank  among  those  en 
titled  to  be  called  statesmen.  It  was  not  mere  chance  that 
brought  him  this  high  honor.  "We  must,"  says  Mr.  Emerson, 
"reckon  success  a  constitutional  trait.  If  Eric  is  in  robust 
health  and  has  slept  well  and  is  at  the  top  of  his  condition,  and 
thirty  years  old  at  his  departure  from  Greenland,  he  will  steer 
west  and  his  ships  will  reach  Newfoundland.  But  take  Eric  out 
and  put  in  a  stronger  and  bolder  man,  and  the  ships  will  sail  six 
hundred,  one  thousand,  fifteen  hundred  miles  farther  and  reach 
Labrador  and  New  England.  There  is  no  chance  in  results." 

As  a  candidate,  Gar  field  steadily  grew  in  popular  favor. 
He  was  met  with  a  storm  of  detraction  at  the  very  hour  of  his 
nomination,  and  it  continued  with  increasing  volume  and  mo 
mentum  until  the  close  of  his  victorious  campaign : 

"  Xo  might  nor  greatness  in  mortality 
Can  censure  'scape  ;  backwounding  calumny 
The  whitest  virtue  strikes.     What  king  so  strong 
Can  tie  the  gall  up  in  the  slanderous  tongue  V  " 

Under  it  all  he  was  calm,  and  strong,  and  confident ;  never 
lost  his  self-possession,  did  no  unwise  act,  spoke  no  hasty  or  ill- 
considered  word.  Indeed,  nothing  in  his  whole  life  is  more 
remarkable  or  more  creditable  than  his  bearing  through  those 
five  full  months  of  vituperation  —  a  prolonged  agony  of  trial 
to  a  sensitive  man,  a  constant  and  cruel  draft  upon  the  powers 
of  moral  endurance.  The  great  mass  of  these  unjust  imputa 
tions  passed  unnoticed,  and  with  the  general  debris  of  the 
campaign  fell  into  oblivion.  But  in  a  few  instances  the  iron 
entered  his  soul,  and  he  died  with  the  injury  unforgotten  if 
not  unforgiven. 

One  aspect  of  Garfield's  candidacy  was  unprecedented. 
Never  before,  in  the  history  of  partisan  contests  in  this  country, 


518  JAMES  A.  GARFIELD. 

had  a  successful  Presidential  candidate  spoken  freely  on  passing 
events  and  current  issues.  To  attempt  any  thing  of  the  kind 
seemed  novel,  rash,  and  even  desperate.  The  older  class  of 
voters  recalled  the  unfortunate  Alabama  letter,  in  which  Mr. 
Clay  was  supposed  to  have  signed  his  political  death-warrant. 
They  remembered  also  the  hot-tempered  effusion  by  which 
General  Scott  lost  a  large  share  of  popularity  before  his 
nomination,  and  the  unfortunate  speeches  which  rapidly  con 
sumed  the  remainder.  The  younger  voters  had  seen  Mr. 
Greeley,  in  a  series  of  vigorous  and  original  addresses,  prepar 
ing  the  pathway  for  his  own  defeat.  Unmindful  of  these  warn 
ings,  unheeding  the  advice  of  friends,  Garfield  spoke  to  large 
crowds  as  he  journeyed  to  and  from  New  York  in  August,  to 
a  great  multitude  in  that  city,  to  delegations  and  deputations 
of  every  kind  that  called  at  Mentor  during  the  summer  and 
autumn.  With  innumerable  critics,  watchful  and  eager  to 
catch  a  phrase  that  might  be  turned  into  odium  or  ridicule,  or 
a  sentence  that  might  be  distorted  to  his  own  or  his  party's  in 
jury,  Garfield  did  not  trip  or  halt  in  any  one  of  his  seventy 
speeches.  This  seems  all  the  more  remarkable  when  it  is  re 
membered  that  he  did  not  write  what  he  was  to  say,  and  yet 
spoke  with  such  consecutiveness  of  thought  and  such  precision 
of  phrase  as  to  defy  the  accident  of  misreport  and  the  malignity 
of  misrepresentation. 

In  the  beginning  of  his  Presidential  life  Garfield's  experi 
ence  did  not  yield  him  pleasure  or  satisfaction.  The  duties 
that  engross  so  large  a  portion  of  the  President's  time  were  dis 
tasteful  to  him,  and  were  unfavorably  contrasted  with  his  legis 
lative  work.  "I  have  been  dealing  all  these  years  with  ideas," 
he  impatiently  exclaimed  one  day,  "  and  here  I  am  dealing  only 
with  persons !  I  have  been  heretofore  treating  of  the  funda 
mental  principles  of  government,  and  here  I  am  considering  all 
day  whether  A  or  B  shall  be  appointed  to  this  or  that  office." 
He  was  earnestly  seeking  some  practical  way  of  correcting  the 
evils  arising  from  the  distribution  of  overgrown  and  unwieldy 
patronage  —  evils  always  appreciated  and  often  discussed  by 
him,  but  whose  magnitude  had  been  more  deeply  impressed 
upon  his  mind  since  his  accession  to  the  Presidency.  Had  he 
lived,  a  comprehensive  improvement  in  the  mode  of  appoint- 


MEMORIAL  ADDRESS.  519 

ment  and  in  the  tenure  of  office  would  have  been  proposed  by 
him,  and,  with  the  aid  of  Congress,  no  doubt  perfected. 

But,  while  many  of  the  executive  duties  were  not  grateful 
to  him,  he  was  assiduous  and  conscientious  in  their  discharge. 
From  the  very  outset  he  exhibited  administrative  talent  of  a 
high  order.  He  grasped  the  helm  of  office  with  the  hand  of 
a  master.  Indeed,  he  constantly  surprised  many  who  were 
intimately  associated  with  him  in  the  Government,  and  espe 
cially  those  who  had  feared  that  lie  might  be  lacking  in  the 
executive  faculty.  His  disposition  of  business  was  orderly 
and  rapid.  His  power  of  analysis,  and  his  skill  in  classifica 
tion,  enabled  him  to  dispatch  a  mass  of  detail  with  promptness 
and  ease.  His  Cabinet  meetings  were  admirably  conducted. 
His  clear  presentation  of  official  subjects,  his  well-considered 
suggestion  of  topics  for  discussion,  his  quick  decision  when  all 
had  been  heard,  combined  to  show  a  thoroughness  of  mental 
training  as  rare  as  his  natural  ability  and  his  facile  adaptation 
to  a  new  and  enlarged  field  of  labor. 

With  perfect  comprehension  of  all  the  inheritances  of  the 
war,  with  a  cool  calculation  of  the  obstacles  in  his  way,  im 
pelled  always  by  a  generous  enthusiasm,  he  conceived  that 
much  might  be  done  by  his  Administration  towards  restoring 
harmony  between  the  different  sections  of  the  Union.  He  was 
anxious  to  go  South  and  speak  to  the  people.  As  early  as 
April  he  had  ineffectually  endeavored  to  arrange  for  a  trip 
to  Nashville,  whither  he  had  been  cordially  invited,  and  he 
was  again  disappointed  a  few  weeks  later  to  find  that  he  could 
not  go  to  South  Carolina  to  attend  the  centennial  celebration 
of  the  victory  of  the  Cowpens.  But  for  the  autumn  he  defi 
nitely  counted  on  being  present  at  fehree  memorable  assemblies 
in  the  South ;  the  celebration  at  Yorktown,  the  opening  of 
the  Cotton  Exposition  at  Atlanta,  and  the  meeting  of  the 
Army  of  the  Cumberland  at  Chattanooga.  He  Avas  already 
turning  over  in  his  mind  his  address  for  each  occasion,  and 
the  three  taken  together,  he  said  to  a  friend,  gave  him  the  ex 
act  scope  and  verge  which  he  needed.  At  Yorktown  he  would 
have  before  him  the  associations  of  a  hundred  years  that  bound 
the  South  and  the  North  in  the  sacred  memory  of  a  common 
danger  and  a  common  victory.  At  Atlanta  he  would  present 


520  JAMES  A.  GARFIELD. 

the  material  interests  and  the  industrial  development  which 
appealed  to  the  thrift  and  independence  of  every  household, 
and  which  should  unite  the  two  sections  by  the  instinct  of  self- 
interest  and  self-defense.  At  Chattanooga  he  would  revive 
memories  of  the  war  only  to  show  that  after  all  its  disaster  and 
suffering,  the  country  was  stronger  and  greater,  the  Union  ren 
dered  indissoluble,  and  the  future,  through  the  agony  and  blood 
of  one  generation,  made  brighter  and  better  for  all. 

His  ambition  for  the  success  of  his  Administration  was  high. 
With  strong  caution  and  conservatism  in  his  nature,  he  was 
in  no  danger  of  attempting  rash  experiments  or  of  resorting 
to  the  empiricism  of  statesmanship.  But  he  believed  that 
renewed  and  closer  attention  should  be  given  to  questions 
affecting  the  material  interests  and  commercial  prospects  of  fifty 
millions  of  people.  He  believed  that  our  continental  relations 
extensive  and  undeveloped  as  they  are,  involved  responsibility, 
and  could  be  cultivated  into  profitable  friendship  or  be  aban 
doned  to  harmful  indifference  or  lasting  enmity.  He  believed 
with  equal  confidence  that  an  essential  forerunner  to  a  new  era 
of  National  progress  must  be  a  feeling  of  contentment  in  every 
section  of  the  Union,  and  a  generous  belief  that  the  benefits 
and  burdens  of  government  would  be  common  to  all.  Himself 
a  conspicuous  illustration  of  what  ability  and  ambition  may  do 
under  Republican  institutions,  he  loved  his  country  with  a  pas 
sion  of  patriotic  devotion,  and  every  waking  thought  was  given 
to  her  advancement.  He  was  an  American  in  all  his  aspira 
tions,  and  he  looked  to  the  destiny  and  influence  of  the  United 
States  with  the  philosophic  composure  of  Jefferson  and  the 
demonstrative  confidence  of  John  Adams. 

The  political  events  which  disturbed  the  President's  serenity 
for  many  weeks  before  that  fateful  day  in  July  form  an  impor 
tant  chapter  in  his  career,  and,  in  his  own  judgment,  involved 
questions  of  principle  and  of  right  which  are  vital  to  the 
constitutional  administration  of  the  Federal  Government.  It 
would  be  out  of  place  here  to  speak  the  language  of  contro 
versy  ;  but  the  events  referred  to,  however  they  may  continue 
to  be  a  source  of  contention  with  others,  have  become,  so 
far  as  the  name  of  Garfield  is  involved,  as  much  a  matter  of 
history  as  his  heroism  at  Chickamauga  or  his  illustrious  service 


MEMORIAL  ADDRESS.  521 

in  the  House.  Detail  is  not  needful,  and  personal  antagonism 
shall  not  be  rekindled  by  any  word  uttered  to-day.  The 
motives  of  those  opposing  him  are  not  now  to  be  adversely  in 
terpreted  or  their  course  harshly  characterized.  But  of  the 
dead  President  this  is  to  be  said,  and  said  because  his  own 
speech  is  forever  silenced  and  he  can  be  no  more  heard  except 
through  the  fidelity  and  love  of  surviving  friends  :  —  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end  of  the  controversy  he  so  much  deplored, 
the  President  was  never  for  one  moment  actuated  by  any  motive 
of  gain  to  himself  or  of  loss  to  others.  Least  of  all  men  did 
he  harbor  revenge,  rarely  did  he  even  show  resentment,  and 
malice  was  not  in  his  nature.  He  was  congenially  employed 
only  in  the  exchange  of  good  offices  and  the  doing  of  kindly 
deeds. 

There  was  not  an  hour,  from  the  beginning  of  the  trouble 
till  the  fatal  shot  entered  his  body,  when  the  President  would 
not  gladly  for  the  sake  of  restoring  harmony,  have  retraced  any 
step  he  had  taken,  if  such  retracing  had  merely  involved  conse 
quences  personal  to  himself.  The  pride  of  consistency,  or  any 
supposed  sense  of  humiliation  that  might  result  from  surrender 
ing  his  position,  had  not  a  feather's  weight  with  him.  No  man 
was  ever  less  subject  to  such  influences  from  within  or  from 
without.  But  after  most  anxious  deliberation  and  the  coolest 
survey  of  all  the  circumstances,  he  solemnly  believed  that  the 
true  prerogatives  of  the  Executive  were  involved  in  the  issue 
which  had  been  raised,  and  that  he  would  be  unfaithful  to  his 
supreme  obligation  if  he  failed  to  maintain,  in  all  their  vigor, 
the  constitutional  rights  and  dignities  of  his  great  office.  He 
believed  this  in  all  the  convictions  of  conscience  when  in  sound 
and  vigorous  health,  and  he  believed  it  in  his  suffering  and 
prostration  in  the  last  conscious  thought  which  his  wearied 
mind  bestowed  on  the  transitory  struggles  of  life. 

More  than  this  need  not  be  said.  Less  than  this  could  not 
be  said.  Justice  to  the  dead,  the  highest  obligation  that  de 
volves  upon  the  living,  demands  the  declaration  that  in  all  the 
bearings  of  the  subject,  actual  or  possible,  the  President  was 
content  in  his  mind,  justified  in  his  conscience,  immovable  in 
his  conclusions. 

The  religious  element  in  Garfield's  character  was  deep  and 


522  JAMES  A.  GARFIELD. 

earnest.  In  his  early  youth  he  espoused  the  faith  of  the  Disci 
ples,  a  sect  of  the  great  Baptist  Communion.  But  the  broaden 
ing  tendency  of  his  mind  and  his  spirit  of  inquiry  were  early 
apparent,  and  carried  him  beyond  the  dogmas  of  sect  and  the 
restraints  of  association.  In  selecting  his  college  he  rejected 
Bethany,  though  presided  over  by  Alexander  Campbell,  the 
greatest  preacher  of  his  church.  His  reasons  were  character 
istic  :  first,  that  Bethany  leaned  too  heavily  towards  slavery ; 
and,  second,  that  being  himself  a  Disciple  and  the  son  of 
Disciple  parents,  he  had  little  acquaintance  with  people  of 
other  beliefs,  and  he  thought  it  would  make  him  more  liberal, 
quoting  his  own  words,  both  in  his  religious  and  general  views, 
to  go  into  a  new  circle  and  be  under  new  influences. 

The  liberal  tendency  which  he  anticipated  as  the  result  of 
wider  culture  was  fully  realized.  He  was  emancipated  from 
mere  sectarian  belief,  and  with  eager  interest  pushed  his  inves 
tigations  in  the  direction  of  modern  progressive  thought.  He 
followed  with  quickening  step  in  the  paths  of  exploration  and 
speculation  fearlessly  trodden  by  Darwin,  by  Huxley,  by  Tyn- 
dall,  and  by  other  eminent  scientists.  His  own  church,  bind 
ing  its  disciples  by  no  formulated  creed,  but  accepting  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  as  the  word  of  God,  with  unbiased  liber 
ality  of  private  interpretation,  favored,  if  it  did  not  stimulate, 
the  spirit  of  investigation. 

But  however  high  Garfield  reasoned  of  "  fixed  fate,  free  will, 
foreknowledge  absolute,"  he  was  never  separated  from  the 
Church  of  the  Disciples  in  his  affections  and  in  his  associations. 
For  him  it  held  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant.  To  him  it  was  the 
gate  of  Heaven.  The  world  of  religious  belief  is  full  of  sole 
cisms  and  contradictions.  A  philosophic  observer  declares  that 
men  by  the  thousand  will  die  in  defense  of  a  creed  whose  doc 
trines  they  do  not  comprehend  and  whose  tenets  they  habitu 
ally  violate.  It  is  equally  true  that  men  by  the  thousand  will 
cling  to  church  organizations  with  instinctive  and  undying 
fidelity,  when  their  belief  in  maturer  years  is  radically  differ 
ent  from  that  which  inspired  them  as  neophytes. 

But  after  this  range  of  speculation,  and  this  latitude  of 
doubt,  Garfield  came  back  always  with  freshness  and  delight 
to  the  simpler  instincts  of  religious  faith,  which,  earliest  im- 


MEMORIAL  ADDRESS.  523 

planted,  longest  survive.  Not  many  weeks  before  his  assassina 
tion,  walking  on  the  banks  of  the  Potomac  with  a  friend,  and 
conversing  on  those  topics  of  personal  religion,  concerning 
which  noble  natures  have  an  unconquerable  reserve,  he  said  that 
he  found  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  the  simple  petitions  learned  in 
infancy  infinitely  restful  to  him,  not  merely  in  their  stated 
repetition,  but  in  their  casual  and  frequent  recall  as  he  went 
about  the  daily  duties  of  life.  Certain  texts  of  Scripture  had 
a  strong  hold  on  his  memory  and  his  heart.  He  heard,  while 
in  Edinburgh  some  years  ago,  an  eminent  Scotch  preacher 
who  prefaced  his  sermon  with  reading  the  eighth  chapter  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  which  book  had  been  the  subject 
of  careful  study  with  Garfield  during  all  his  religious  life. 
He  was  greatly  impressed  by  the  elocution  of  the  preacher  and 
declared  that  it  had  imparted  a  new  and  deeper  meaning  to  the 
majestic  utterance  of  St.  Paul.  He  referred  often  in  after 
years  to  that  memorable  service,  and  dwelt  with  exaltation  of 
feeling  upon  the  radiant  promise  and  the  assured  hope  with 
which  the  great  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  was  "persuaded  that 
neither  death,  nor  life,  nor  angels,  nor  principalities,  nor  pow 
ers,  nor  things  present,  nor  things  to  come,  nor  height,  nor 
depth,  nor  any  other  creature,  shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from 
the  love  of  God,  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord." 

The  crowning  characteristic  of  General  Garfield's  religious 
opinions,  as,  indeed,  of  all  his  opinions,  was  his  liberality.  In 
all  things  he  had  charity.  Tolerance  was  of  his  nature.  He 
respected  in  others  the  qualities  which  he  possessed  himself — 
sincerity  of  conviction  and  frankness  of  expression.  With  him 
the  inquiry  was  not  so  much  what  a  man  believes,  but  does  he 
believe  it?  The  lines  of  his  friendship  and  his  confidence  en 
circled  men  of  every  creed,  and  men  of  no  creed,  and  to  the 
end  of  his  life,  on  his  ever-lengthening  list  of  friends,  were 
to  be  found  the  names  of  a  pious  Catholic  priest  and  of  an 
honest-minded  and  generous-hearted  free-thinker. 

On  the  morning  of  Saturday,  July  2,  the  President  was  a 
contented  ami  happy  man  —  not  in  an  ordinary  degree,  but 
joyfully,  almost  boyishly  happy.  On  his  way  to  the  railroad 
station,  to  which  he  drove  slowly,  in  conscious  enjoyment  of 
the  beautiful  morning,  with  an  unwonted  sense  of  leisure  and 


524  JAMES  A.  GARFIELD. 

a  keen  anticipation  of  pleasure,  his  talk  was  all  in  the  grateful 
and  gratulatory  vein.  He  felt  that  after  four  months  of  trial 
his  Administration  was  strong  in  its  grasp  of  affairs,  strong  in 
popular  favor,  and  destined  to  grow  stronger ;  that  grave  diffi 
culties  confronting  him  at  his  inauguration  had  been  safely 
passed ;  that  trouble  lay  behind  him  and  not  before  him ;  that 
he  was  soon  to  meet  the  wife  whom  he  loved,  now  recovering 
from  an  illness  which  had  but  lately  disquieted  and  at  times 
almost  unnerved  him  ;  that  he  was  going  to  his  Alma  Mater  to 
renew  the  most  cherished  associations  of  his  young  manhood, 
and  to  exchange  greetings  with  those  whose  deepening  interest 
had  followed  every  step  of  his  upward  progress  from  the  day 
he  entered  upon  his  college  course  until  he  had  attained  the 
loftiest  elevation  in  the  gift  of  his  countrymen. 

Surely  if  happiness  can  ever  come  from  the  honors  or  tri 
umphs  of  this  world,  on  that  quiet  July  morning  Garfield  may 
well  have  been  a  happy  man.  No  foreboding  of  evil  haunted 
him ;  no  premonition  of  danger  clouded  his  sky.  His  terrible 
fate  was  upon  him  in  an  instant.  One  moment  he  stood  erect, 
strong,  confident  in  the  years  stretching  peacefully  out  before 
him.  The  next  he  lay  wounded,  bleeding,  helpless,  doomed  to 
weary  weeks  of  torture,  to  silence,  and  the  grave. 

Great  in  life,  he  was  surpassingly  great  in  death.  For  no 
cause,  in  the  very  frenzy  of  wantonness  and  wickedness,  by  the 
red  hand  of  murder,  he  was  thrust  from  the  full  tide  of  this 
world's  interest,  from  its  hopes,  its  aspirations,  its  victories,  into 
the  visible  presence  of  death  —  and  he  did  not  quail.  Not 
alone  for  the  one  short  moment  in  which,  stunned  and  dazed 
he  could  give  up  life,  hardly  aware  of  its  relinquishment,  but 
through  days  of  deadly  languor,  through  weeks  of  agony,  that 
was  not  less  agony  because  silently  borne,  with  clear  sight  and 
calm  courage,  he  looked  into  his  open  grave.  What  blight  and 
ruin  met  his  anguished  eyes,  whose  lips  may  tell  —  what  bril 
liant,  broken  plans,  what  baffled,  high  ambitions,  what  sunder 
ing  of  strong,  warm,  manhood's  friendships,  what  bitter  rending 
of  sweet  household  ties  !  Behind  him  a  proud,  expectant  nation, 
a  great  host  of  sustaining  friends,  a  cherished  and  happy  mother, 
wearing  the  full,  rich  honors  of  her  early  toil  and  tears ;  the 
wife  of  his  youth,  whose  whole  life  lay  in  his ;  the  little  boys 


MEMORIAL  ADDRESS.  525 

not  yet  emerged  from  childhood's  day  of  frolic ;  the  fair  young 
daughter ;  the  sturdy  sons  just  springing  into  closest  compan 
ionship,  claiming  every  day  and  every  day  rewarding  a  father's 
love  and  care ;  and  in  his  heart  the  eager,  rejoicing  power  to 
meet  all  demand.  Before  him,  desolation  and  great  darkness ! 
And  his  soul  was  not  shaken. 

His  countrymen  were  thrilled  with  instant,  profound,  and 
universal  sympathy.  Masterful  in  his  mortal  weakness,  he 
became  the  centre  of  a  nation's  love ;  he  was  enshrined  in  the 
prayers  of  a  world.  But  all  the  love  and  all  the  sympathy 
could  not  share  with  him  his  suffering.  He  trod  the  wine-press 
alone.  With  unfaltering  front  he  faced  death.  With  unfailing 
tenderness  he  took  leave  of  life.  Above  the  demoniac  hiss  of 
the  assassin's  bullet  he  heard  the  voice  of  God.  In  simple 
resignation  he  bowed  to  the  divine  decree. 

As  the  end  drew  near,  his  early  craving  for  the  sea  returned. 
The  stately  mansion  of  power  had  been  to  him  the  wearisome 
hospital  of  pain,  and  he  begged  to  be  taken  from  its  prison 
walls,  from  its  oppressive,  stifling  air,  from  its  homelessness  and 
its  hopelessness.  Gently,  silently,  the  love  of  a  great  people 
bore  the  pale  sufferer  to  the  longed-for  healing  of  the  sea,  to 
live  or  to  die,  as  God  should  will,  within  sight  of  its  heaving 
billows,  within  sound  of  its  manifold  voices.  With  wan,  fevered 
face  tenderly  lifted  to  the  cooling  breeze,  he  looked  out  wist 
fully  upon  the  ocean's  changing  wonders ;  on  its  far  sails,  whit 
ening  in  the  morning  light ;  on  its  restless  waves,  rolling  shore 
ward  to  break  and  die  beneath  the  noonday  sun ;  on  the  red 
clouds  of  evening,  arching  low  to  the  horizon  ;  on  the  serene 
and  shining  pathway  of  the  stars.  Let  us  think  that  his  dying 
eyes  read  a  mystic  meaning  which  only  the  rapt  and  parting 
soul  may  know.  Let  us  believe  that  in  the  silence  of  the  reced 
ing  world  he  heard  the  great  waves  breaking  on  a  farther  shore, 
and  felt  already  upon  his  wasted  brow  the  breath  of  the  eternal 
morning. 


r 


RETURN    CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 
TO—*    202  Main  Library 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

Renewals  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 

Books  may  be  Renewed  by  calling        642-3405 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

i 

ADD    T|    <£     /DO 

rr!  ' 

FORM  NO    DD6 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


;«          .   V 

M 


w 

p no 


I 


. 

t    m'{'    <m    ]J8 

• 


* 


JO        «t 


. .     .      ,     - 

•.  ,•  .  § 

.. 


«'  '^^^^^k        :k 


. 


